Democracy for me and not for thee.
Wait, what? You can't just meet in the basement and select your own Presidential Electors?He did. He rejected your fraudulently chosen electors that your team tried to submit.
I think jamil, in his heart of hearts, believes that such a MAD balance is unstable for that purpose and only encourages division along tribal lines - that's likely one of the reasons he is such a nag about 'binary thinking', because he feels the us v them mentality exacerbates such tribal states. I feel like he believe normal can still be brought back if we just work hard enough, but he never adequately articulates what mechanism might enable that beyond we suddenly all choose to live together in peace and harmony. As an atheist, I'm surprised he believes in epiphanyTo play tit for tat, the same way it works in the wild, the same way geopolitics work, the same way evolution works.
If the left will burn down the courts for opposing them, then the right must be ready and willing to present the same level of escalation if their needs aren't met. Only by there being some degree of balance will there be any path towards reconciliation or civility. Until that happens, and is embraced and supported by the right at large, we're going in a singular direction off that cliff.
It's truly baffling to me that people don't understand this basic principle, when anyone moderately successful has to apply it throughout their life, whether social or business, to be successful.
It's harder to get red states to even do it, because so many republicans areWell, how that plays out, it’s been escalated to the point where a Blue state partisan **** has just unilaterally pulled Trump from the ballot. Courts should slap that down. But, at this point I think it’s time to make them live in the world they propose by having Red state SoS’s pull Biden from their ballot.
But it’s harder for people to get the right message when it’s red states doing it because corporate media would definitely uphold the Blue, and marginalize the Red.
Who wants to wear a suit to work though? Only an elitest would care about the clothes someone wears.“While 160 million people might vote in this November’s election, only about 50,000 voters spread throughout a new battleground map consisting of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin, will decide the next occupant of the White House.”
“For the “never-Trump” or the “Trump-reluctant” Republicans, it might be fun to imagine someone else like Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis winning the GOP nomination. But according to pretty much every national poll, including our own, the likelihood to someone other than Trump securing the GOP nomination is as likely as Senator John Fetterman wanting to wear wearing a suit to work.”
I think you have a facile understanding what I think. Bipartisanship? That's so 2014. But, meanwhile you got your musket out and are walking out to the town square.I think jamil, in his heart of hearts, believes that such a MAD balance is unstable for that purpose and only encourages division along tribal lines - that's likely one of the reasons he is such a nag about 'binary thinking', because he feels the us v them mentality exacerbates such tribal states. I feel like he believe normal can still be brought back if we just work hard enough, but he never adequately articulates what mechanism might enable that beyond we suddenly all choose to live together in peace and harmony. As an atheist, I'm surprised he believes in epiphany
He fails to realize, IMO, that we are way past the point of no return on bipartisanship and working together. There is very little overlap in visions of the direction for the country and one side or the other (because at heart, there really are only two sides - the America that was or the Amerika that will be)
will need to be crushed before a less hostile relationship can be restored. I want the marxist side to be the one that gets the W T Sherman treatment
I have never been arguing the particular, my beef is with the general - that an Ivy League law degree in some way is indicative in and of itself of ability and gravitas. That is what is at the heart of credentialismCredentialism much?
Do you then agree with myself and others that Guliani was puffing up Eastman at the J6 rally trying to sell him as a "preeminent constitutional scholar" apparently on the subject matter he was about to speak on.
You must given the fact that you would not accord him the status of expert anything. Guliani was presenting him as their expert. All I was suggesting is that perhaps he was their "expert" because he went along with their plan.
What you just said is in essence what several of us have been saying.
I’ve had a long day. I’m not sure I’m saying anything right now.
WTF? lolz
Of course! You WOULD believe that your own views are complex and nuanced while those of others are simplistic and wrong-headed and will likely continue to do soI think you have a facile understanding what I think. Bipartisanship? That's so 2014. But, meanwhile you got your musket out and are walking out to the town square.
What I'm saying is you don't bother to think about it. You just say **** that you want me to have said. What have I written on INGO that is remotely bipartisan?Of course! You WOULD believe that your own views are complex and nuanced while those of others are simplistic and wrong-headed and will likely continue to do so
View attachment 322011
I know. That's what makes it even worse.It's barely noon.
I mean. That's not really true.“While 160 million people might vote in this November’s election, only about 50,000 voters spread throughout a new battleground map consisting of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin, will decide the next occupant of the White House.”
“For the “never-Trump” or the “Trump-reluctant” Republicans, it might be fun to imagine someone else like Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis winning the GOP nomination. But according to pretty much every national poll, including our own, the likelihood to someone other than Trump securing the GOP nomination is as likely as Senator John Fetterman wanting to wear wearing a suit to work.”
IF you are referring to my Turley post to IM with your snark, I was merely demonstrating that I can come up with an "expert" as well to counter their "expert"I have never been arguing the particular, my beef is with the general - that an Ivy League law degree in some way is indicative in and of itself of ability and gravitas. That is what is at the heart of credentialism
Turley, who the harpies in this discussion do regard as a constitutional expert, got his JD at Northwestern BTW. Oops