|
Post by Spektre on Jan 15, 2021 18:30:23 GMT
Trump has said there's enough fraud that he "really" won every state, i.e., nationwide. Again, a presidential election is not held "nationwide". It is held at the state level. Thus fraud occurs at the state level. My remarks are based on what Trump and his camp have said, and failed to back it up. PA's example does not prove that, since those votes were dismissed, and no significant, election-altering fraud actually exists. Again, you are overlooking widespread election fraud, but let's steel-man your argument and consider that widespread fraud does not exist. This does not help your point in claiming Trump called for violence. I don't watch MSNBC or read what's-her-name. You haven't provided ANY evidence of Harris "stoking violence". In fact, if you bothered to click on my previous links, she made a distinction between the peaceful protesters (whom her encouragement was aimed at) and the violent actors (whom she did NOT encourage), so maybe you didn't understand her quote...only took it how it would negatively paint her. Y'know...like you were biased or something. So why didn't you actually click on ANY of the links I provided? I mean, if I provided a link to Trump telling is supporters to beat up some guy, promising to "pay their legal fees" (HA...Trump paying for something that isn't a porn star's silence...), you likely wouldn't click it. I could point out things Trump has said to agitate his base, like "we won the election, they're attacking the Constitution, they're stealing our victory, we gotta win back our country, we have to fight, be strong"...y'know, things he's been saying for months, at least, that are clearly meant to rile them up. They may not be specific commands for violence, but certainly can invoke it, (ANOTHER LINK YOU WON'T CLICK) especially if he's convincing them that "fighting back" will be a great, patriotic and heroic act. But even though you claim (but haven't shown) Harris encouraged it, you won't see how Trump could be perceived to have done that very thing. Maybe people are calling him out, not Harris, is because the reality doesn't fit YOUR bias, and that's your real problem here. Harris was encouraging a set of action that had already lead to widespread violence. There is a history here. A reasonable person would conclude that calls to more of the SAME action would lead to ADDITIONAL acts of violence. Trump's comments, in contrast, were not made following widespread acts of violence from similar events. Indeed, he specifically called out "peaceful and patriotic" protest. And, once violence ensued, he called for the protesters to disperse and go home. Harris called for additional events associated with history of violence, not the cessation of protests. Trump called for peaceful protests and actively called for those to stop once violence ensued. Sorry Sporkbot, your bias is showing through loud and clear here. So you've completely ignored my statement about not posting much for a while Sure looks like you weren't on vacation while the country burned... ...where do you expect me to conjure my thoughts on the violence of 2020? Besides what I said earlier when I never condoned it. If I texted them to my sister on a phone I no longer have, how do I present that? Or if I had a conversation about it with someone at a comic shop? Or maybe I just sank my head in my hands as I watched footage of things getting out of hand and didn't mention it to anyone because I was too depressed over EVERYTHING ELSE going wrong in this country (largely because of Trump). Again, this is a distraction because you're working on false narratives and "whataboutisms" to equate what happened on Jan. 6. "Everything wrong in this country largely because of Trump"...nope no bias here. You didn't post for a long time but felt so strongly about Trump's actions you had to come out of retirement...nope no bias here. I don't LIKE Trump. I find him a buffoon and a narcissist. But again, my rationality simply won't allow for the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has spread more rapidly than COVID to sit unchallenged. Come to think of it, you haven't provided a detailed account of what you thought the second those white supremacists/nazis/domestic terrorists invaded the Capitol. By your own logic, you must be biased. My first post to the forum, following the riots was to discuss them and call the riot an attack on the Capitol. Still waiting on your show of a lack of bias (crickets chirp) And no, as I have claimed I do NOT equate them, I treat them to the same set of standards. I condemn them both, but not equally. To do so would lose the sense of proportionality the must larger and widespread violence seen over the summer had as compared to the relatively short-lived, and self-contained violence seen on Jan. 6. But then I don't expect you to acknowledge that greater violence and greater property destruction is WORSE because.. you know...untreated trump Derangement Syndrome. You don't "win" this because your arbitrary and ever-changing personal rules don't get satiated. You can claim "bias" all you want, pretending that it somehow invalidates what I think of those traitors in the Capitol, but it doesn't. What I think of those incidents has nothing to do with what happened at Capitol, because they're DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. You're behaving EXACTLY like Herald has described, and much the way you're accusing me of..."echo chambers" and so on. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" isn't a real thing...it's just what Trump supporters call people who get frustrated with someone getting away with inappropriate and outright criminal activity with the kind of lies a childhood bully tells the Principal when they get caught...and people acting like "nothing happened" because they either refuse to believe someone they voted for did anything wrong, or they get some sick pleasure from agitating people they disagree with, like they makes them special. Supporters use this term so they don't have to apply thought to situations, and remain ignorant and loyal to someone who'd sell them out for a shiny enough nickel. And even though I figure you won't click on it anyway, here's why it took him hours to do something ANY previous President would've acted on in minutes. I win because you have to fall back on your own comments that no election fraud occurred or that Trump incited violence. I win because your bias is clearly on display based on how you react to one limited situation as opposes to another widespread situation. I win because Psychology Today recognized That said, in its official definition of mental disorder, the DSM-5 states that: "a mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior…mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. Many have argued that some people have been seriously disturbed and distressed by the policies, speech, behavior, and tweets of President Trump, so much so that it has affected their cognitive, affective, and behavioral functioning. Such people may need mental health support." And before you go there, I am consistent here as well, as I also recognize a Trump Messiah Syndrome by many of his followers that Trump can do no wrong. Facebook is a business, and they can exercise their rules, even if that includes deleting someone's post if they're, for example, flagging or deleting someone's post that includes verifiably false information. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences for saying something wrong or stupid. Same way Beige Lantern, I think, got himself banned from the Outhouse years ago; his behavior violated the rules of the forums, and he was removed. His rights weren't violated, he was taken to task for his actions. Social media companies are doing more now, BECAUSE leaving it as unchecked as it was before, allows people like Trump to spread a disease of hatred and ignorance. Which would be fine and dandy if these platforms were not operating under the auspices of a public square in order to garner Section 230 protections. Once they lose liability for their own publications due to such protection and editorialize content, they lose this ability. Fortunately this is one issue with bipartisan support. And once again, bias showing. Literal violence was allowed to flourish on these platforms as BLM organizers planned their next riot. Genocidal regimes in the Middle east still have their accounts intact. If you truly think these bannings are to reduce violence, this again shows a lack of critical thinking and inability to recognize bias. But here's another good bias test... Private company, able to be run as they so desire is the argument above. How do you come down on the baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm suffering from "unthinking bias". I never stated it was the case,. Many people disagree with me in a self-consistent manner. You do not. THIS is what demonstrates the bias. Frankly, as I've cited numerous sources, done some actual resources, it actually shows a willingness to look into things. You, on the other hand, have provided only a few links, one of which was terribly biased in itself, twisting data for a personal narrative. It doesn't matter whether or not you like Trump, he doesn't have the "hard fought freedom" to lie to people for years, profit himself, and not face any consequences for it (real consequences, not some dope going on TV saying he "learned his lesson"). What you've displayed here is the equivalent of someone yelling "no" over and over thinking that's proven their case. It hasn't. In case you missed them, I have posted sources as well and even told you to look at some of yours. That you seem incapable of understanding them or accepting them is what shows bias. If I have a bias, it's towards facts. Trump's camp doesn't have any. I may not agree with how Herald has been posting, but I understand it, because Trump isn't "just like" Obama, or the Bushes, or Clinton or any previous President. He's not the same, his actions and motives aren't the same, so he cannot be treated the same. Maybe instead of complaining about what you think my biases are, you should try examining your own, because you keep getting in your own way here. You're not discussing or engaging in this conversation, your evading and ignoring. You're repeating irrelevant talking points to hide the fact that you're not as right as you thought you were. It's nothing I'm not already used to, but it really doesn't do you any good. "He cannot be treated the same as other Presidents" ... nope, no bias here. When you learn to treat ALL situations logically and consistently, we can talk about how your biases don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by noctournem on Jan 15, 2021 22:03:24 GMT
A Presidntial election is not national. It is a series of state elections. There is no possibility for "nationwide fraud" as you point out. The fraud (as point out here) happens at the various state levels. Stop watching MSNBC and reading Mother Jones. Kamala Harris stoked the violence by encouraging the BLM mob over and over again. Trump holds a rally (one which to that point had NO history of violence) and you claim he is inciting violence. Let me ask you can you quote Trump at his rally stating "go out and destroy"? If you cannot...bias. Sorry dude, you've been caught repeatedly with your bias showing. I know the echo chambers you listen to are relentless in drilling this viewpoint into you, but you must learn to think for yourself. "As for "heal thyself"...did you think merely redirecting words somehow meant you made a point? Because it didn't happen." Of course I have. You have yet to point toward you full throated condemnation of the BLM riot violence at the time they occurred. (waiting...) Do you have such an example? But then the bias is clear. You have the Harris quote RIGHT there and yet you refuse to understand it. When people tell you to beware...believe them. You and Harold have me confused with a Trump fan. I voted against him in each election and consider him a buffoon. But I am simply too rational and fact-based to fall into the Trump Derangement Syndrome I see on obvious display here. As you can see the reason for such a fear of loss of rationality is on display in Harold's post. He celebrates the quashing of free speech. Polite and non-controversial speech has no need of protections. Freedom of speech is to protect the most controversial, the most vile of speech, because in the absence of speech, all that is left is violence. Tonight it was reported that a man, who's political career was dedicated to the non-aggression principal, Ron Paul, was blocked from Facebook for writing an article critical of these actions. It is this chilling of freedom of speech that bias such as you are displaying here must be so closely guarded against. Harold is little more than a frothing at the mouth, rabid dog at this point. Take a step back. Is that what you want to be as well? Do you really want this unthinking bias to strip away these hard fought freedoms? Trump has said there's enough fraud that he "really" won every state, i.e., nationwide. My remarks are based on what Trump and his camp have said, and failed to back it up. PA's example does not prove that, since those votes were dismissed, and no significant, election-altering fraud actually exists. I don't watch MSNBC or read what's-her-name. You haven't provided ANY evidence of Harris "stoking violence". In fact, if you bothered to click on my previous links, she made a distinction between the peaceful protesters (whom her encouragement was aimed at) and the violent actors (whom she did NOT encourage), so maybe you didn't understand her quote...only took it how it would negatively paint her. Y'know...like you were biased or something. So why didn't you actually click on ANY of the links I provided? I mean, if I provided a link to Trump telling is supporters to beat up some guy, promising to "pay their legal fees" (HA...Trump paying for something that isn't a porn star's silence...), you likely wouldn't click it. I could point out things Trump has said to agitate his base, like "we won the election, they're attacking the Constitution, they're stealing our victory, we gotta win back our country, we have to fight, be strong"...y'know, things he's been saying for months, at least, that are clearly meant to rile them up. They may not be specific commands for violence, but certainly can invoke it, (ANOTHER LINK YOU WON'T CLICK) especially if he's convincing them that "fighting back" will be a great, patriotic and heroic act. But even though you claim (but haven't shown) Harris encouraged it, you won't see how Trump could be perceived to have done that very thing. Maybe people are calling him out, not Harris, is because the reality doesn't fit YOUR bias, and that's your real problem here. So you've completely ignored my statement about not posting much for a while...where do you expect me to conjure my thoughts on the violence of 2020? Besides what I said earlier when I never condoned it. If I texted them to my sister on a phone I no longer have, how do I present that? Or if I had a conversation about it with someone at a comic shop? Or maybe I just sank my head in my hands as I watched footage of things getting out of hand and didn't mention it to anyone because I was too depressed over EVERYTHING ELSE going wrong in this country (largely because of Trump). Again, this is a distraction because you're working on false narratives and "whataboutisms" to equate what happened on Jan. 6. Comes to think of it, you haven't provided a detailed account of what you thought the second those white supremacists/nazis/domestic terrorists invaded the Capitol. By your own logic, you must be biased. You don't "win" this because your arbitrary and ever-changing personal rules don't get satiated. You can claim "bias" all you want, pretending that it somehow invalidates what I think of those traitors in the Capitol, but it doesn't. What I think of those incidents has nothing to do with what happened at Capitol, because they're DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. You're behaving EXACTLY like Herald has described, and much the way you're accusing me of..."echo chambers" and so on. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" isn't a real thing...it's just what Trump supporters call people who get frustrated with someone getting away with inappropriate and outright criminal activity with the kind of lies a childhood bully tells the Principal when they get caught...and people acting like "nothing happened" because they either refuse to believe someone they voted for did anything wrong, or they get some sick pleasure from agitating people they disagree with, like they makes them special. Supporters use this term so they don't have to apply thought to situations, and remain ignorant and loyal to someone who'd sell them out for a shiny enough nickel. And even though I figure you won't click on it anyway, here's why it took him hours to do something ANY previous President would've acted on in minutes. Facebook is a business, and they can exercise their rules, even if that includes deleting someone's post if they're, for example, flagging or deleting someone's post that includes verifiably false information. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences for saying something wrong or stupid. Same way Beige Lantern, I think, got himself banned from the Outhouse years ago; his behavior violated the rules of the forums, and he was removed. His rights weren't violated, he was taken to task for his actions. Social media companies are doing more now, BECAUSE leaving it as unchecked as it was before, allows people like Trump to spread a disease of hatred and ignorance. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm suffering from "unthinking bias". Frankly, as I've cited numerous sources, done some actual resources, it actually shows a willingness to look into things. You, on the other hand, have provided only a few links, one of which was terribly biased in itself, twisting data for a personal narrative. It doesn't matter whether or not you like Trump, he doesn't have the "hard fought freedom" to lie to people for years, profit himself, and not face any consequences for it (real consequences, not some dope going on TV saying he "learned his lesson"). What you've displayed here is the equivalent of someone yelling "no" over and over thinking that's proven their case. It hasn't. If I have a bias, it's towards facts. Trump's camp doesn't have any. I may not agree with how Herald has been posting, but I understand it, because Trump isn't "just like" Obama, or the Bushes, or Clinton or any previous President. He's not the same, his actions and motives aren't the same, so he cannot be treated the same. Maybe instead of complaining about what you think my biases are, you should try examining your own, because you keep getting in your own way here. You're not discussing or engaging in this conversation, your evading and ignoring. You're repeating irrelevant talking points to hide the fact that you're not as right as you thought you were. It's nothing I'm not already used to, but it really doesn't do you any good. You won. Don't feel obligated to feed the troll. There is 0% evidence there was widespread election fraud in the states that voted for Biden. Let's talk Ky instead. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by noctournem on Jan 15, 2021 22:07:18 GMT
Mad props to trump for fucking up the only aspect of the vaccine he had anything to do with: the rollout. He leaves as he entered; absolutely numb to what a average americans need, think , or expect.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jan 15, 2021 23:00:10 GMT
Mad props to trump for fucking up the only aspect of the vaccine he had anything to do with: the rollout. He leaves as he entered; absolutely numb to what a average americans need, think , or expect. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk How exactly did he "fuck up" the rollout? Considering that Biden is apparently adopting Trump's plan wholesale, and slapping his name on it, but promising to do better because he's not Orange Man bad or something. As it happens, the current problems with vaccinations aren't anything to do with Trump, but rather governors and mayors effing up the distribution on their end. The states get an allotment of the drugs, and THEY have to decide how to distribute them, as it proper, because those closet to the problem in theory SHOULD know who needs it most, and how to get it out there. However, due to concerns about the speed of development, magnified by months of top Dems from Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Cuomo on down all repeatedly saying, or in Biden's case shouting, that they would NEVER take a vaccine developed under Trump, a large number of medical personnel have declined to take it, leaving does rigidly set for only them to go bad. A few places they've allowed whoever was on hand to get the extra doses rather than let them go bad, but not nearly enough.
And lest you think that Biden's sheer competence will make the difference; let me set you straight, he doesn't have any competence. After all, Obama himself warned to never underestimate Biden's ability to "f*ck things up." And that was back when Biden's mind was still working a bit. So no, Biden won't help things. Hopefully, President Harris won't let the Senator from "Where am I" do that, and be the one actually running things, at least until they can 25th him and install her formally. It'll be fine though, he won't notice, since he still thinks she's the President Elect, (so does she for that matter).
So Orange Man Bad might be gone soon, but don't look for Biden to improve things. And BTW, the whole Trump thing started because neither the Democratic Party nor the traditional Republicans knew or cared a damn thing about "ordinary Americans" who were turned off by the open contempt and hatred shown them by the Dems, and a total lack of care by the Republicans. All while a large segment of the population was desperate, and ignored by one party while hated by the other. So, please don't pretend the Dems know or give a damn about "ordinary Americans". After all, Trump offered that $2000 stimulus check while Pelosi stalled it as America burned because it might help Trump's re-election chances.
None of which IMO absolves Trump of his own problems with respect to the COVID response; but they weren't what the Dems are claiming. His real faults in that respect lay in his inability to understand he should have been a calming presence, a voice of authority when even the "medical" experts were intentionally lying to the public, (see Fauci's big lies that he admitted to because he thought the American public was too stupid to understand math), or claiming that the year's BLM/Antifa riots which they all endorsed would never spread the virus because it can tell they had pure hearts or something. Trump was not that man. Instead, he made it all about him. No one gave a flying...f*ck about him, but he mentioned his own name nearly as often as Obama, and under much worse conditions. He should have been telling people exactly what was going on, instead of whining about whoever was nasty to him that day.
It was said his fans liked him because unlike any of the other Republicans, he fought back against the Democrat's worst excesses. Well and good, I suppose, but I didn't see any of that with him. STFU about yourself is advice I'd have given him, but he obviously didn't.
But no, his powers were limited. Biden or Harris won't be able to order a national mask mandate like he and the media have been claiming, (yes, after he won he did modify his position to the more realistic, "on Federal grounds" for his mandate. Only state governors can do that, or mayors in their cities, and a few other local officials. Let's not forget too that the guy you and the media and the Dems claim f*cked up the rollout is the only reason we even have vaccines. I seem to recall a lot of laughing and pointing and shouting at Trump for claiming he could get a vaccine out there by the end of the year. Fauci laughed at it, as did every single Democrat out there. And yet look what happened. Trump gauranteed the drug companies wouldn't lose their shirts if the vaccine hadn't worked, by preordering hundreds of millions of doses. Which was the only way they'd even have tried under that timeframe. And he loosened the process a bit. For that reason alone, the Democrats and the media don't' get to whine about Trump's vaccine rollout. If it had been them, NO American would have even had a vaccine until late THIS year.
|
|
|
Post by noctournem on Jan 15, 2021 23:34:47 GMT
Mad props to trump for fucking up the only aspect of the vaccine he had anything to do with: the rollout. He leaves as he entered; absolutely numb to what a average americans need, think , or expect. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk How exactly did he "fuck up" the rollout? Considering that Biden is apparently adopting Trump's plan wholesale, and slapping his name on it, but promising to do better because he's not Orange Man bad or something. As it happens, the current problems with vaccinations aren't anything to do with Trump, but rather governors and mayors effing up the distribution on their end. The states get an allotment of the drugs, and THEY have to decide how to distribute them, as it proper, because those closet to the problem in theory SHOULD know who needs it most, and how to get it out there. However, due to concerns about the speed of development, magnified by months of top Dems from Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Cuomo on down all repeatedly saying, or in Biden's case shouting, that they would NEVER take a vaccine developed under Trump, a large number of medical personnel have declined to take it, leaving does rigidly set for only them to go bad. A few places they've allowed whoever was on hand to get the extra doses rather than let them go bad, but not nearly enough.
And lest you think that Biden's sheer competence will make the difference; let me set you straight, he doesn't have any competence. After all, Obama himself warned to never underestimate Biden's ability to "f*ck things up." And that was back when Biden's mind was still working a bit. So no, Biden won't help things. Hopefully, President Harris won't let the Senator from "Where am I" do that, and be the one actually running things, at least until they can 25th him and install her formally. It'll be fine though, he won't notice, since he still thinks she's the President Elect, (so does she for that matter).
So Orange Man Bad might be gone soon, but don't look for Biden to improve things. And BTW, the whole Trump thing started because neither the Democratic Party nor the traditional Republicans knew or cared a damn thing about "ordinary Americans" who were turned off by the open contempt and hatred shown them by the Dems, and a total lack of care by the Republicans. All while a large segment of the population was desperate, and ignored by one party while hated by the other. So, please don't pretend the Dems know or give a damn about "ordinary Americans". After all, Trump offered that $2000 stimulus check while Pelosi stalled it as America burned because it might help Trump's re-election chances.
None of which IMO absolves Trump of his own problems with respect to the COVID response; but they weren't what the Dems are claiming. His real faults in that respect lay in his inability to understand he should have been a calming presence, a voice of authority when even the "medical" experts were intentionally lying to the public, (see Fauci's big lies that he admitted to because he thought the American public was too stupid to understand math), or claiming that the year's BLM/Antifa riots which they all endorsed would never spread the virus because it can tell they had pure hearts or something. Trump was not that man. Instead, he made it all about him. No one gave a flying...f*ck about him, but he mentioned his own name nearly as often as Obama, and under much worse conditions. He should have been telling people exactly what was going on, instead of whining about whoever was nasty to him that day.
It was said his fans liked him because unlike any of the other Republicans, he fought back against the Democrat's worst excesses. Well and good, I suppose, but I didn't see any of that with him. STFU about yourself is advice I'd have given him, but he obviously didn't.
But no, his powers were limited. Biden or Harris won't be able to order a national mask mandate like he and the media have been claiming, (yes, after he won he did modify his position to the more realistic, "on Federal grounds" for his mandate. Only state governors can do that, or mayors in their cities, and a few other local officials. Let's not forget too that the guy you and the media and the Dems claim f*cked up the rollout is the only reason we even have vaccines. I seem to recall a lot of laughing and pointing and shouting at Trump for claiming he could get a vaccine out there by the end of the year. Fauci laughed at it, as did every single Democrat out there. And yet look what happened. Trump gauranteed the drug companies wouldn't lose their shirts if the vaccine hadn't worked, by preordering hundreds of millions of doses. Which was the only way they'd even have tried under that timeframe. And he loosened the process a bit. For that reason alone, the Democrats and the media don't' get to whine about Trump's vaccine rollout. If it had been them, NO American would have even had a vaccine until late THIS year.
What a compelling bad faith argument. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Spektre on Jan 16, 2021 5:07:59 GMT
How exactly did he "fuck up" the rollout? Considering that Biden is apparently adopting Trump's plan wholesale, and slapping his name on it, but promising to do better because he's not Orange Man bad or something. As it happens, the current problems with vaccinations aren't anything to do with Trump, but rather governors and mayors effing up the distribution on their end. The states get an allotment of the drugs, and THEY have to decide how to distribute them, as it proper, because those closet to the problem in theory SHOULD know who needs it most, and how to get it out there. However, due to concerns about the speed of development, magnified by months of top Dems from Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Cuomo on down all repeatedly saying, or in Biden's case shouting, that they would NEVER take a vaccine developed under Trump, a large number of medical personnel have declined to take it, leaving does rigidly set for only them to go bad. A few places they've allowed whoever was on hand to get the extra doses rather than let them go bad, but not nearly enough.
None of which IMO absolves Trump of his own problems with respect to the COVID response; but they weren't what the Dems are claiming. His real faults in that respect lay in his inability to understand he should have been a calming presence, a voice of authority when even the "medical" experts were intentionally lying to the public, (see Fauci's big lies that he admitted to because he thought the American public was too stupid to understand math), or claiming that the year's BLM/Antifa riots which they all endorsed would never spread the virus because it can tell they had pure hearts or something. Trump was not that man. Instead, he made it all about him. No one gave a flying...f*ck about him, but he mentioned his own name nearly as often as Obama, and under much worse conditions. He should have been telling people exactly what was going on, instead of whining about whoever was nasty to him that day.
It was said his fans liked him because unlike any of the other Republicans, he fought back against the Democrat's worst excesses. Well and good, I suppose, but I didn't see any of that with him. STFU about yourself is advice I'd have given him, but he obviously didn't.
But no, his powers were limited. Biden or Harris won't be able to order a national mask mandate like he and the media have been claiming, (yes, after he won he did modify his position to the more realistic, "on Federal grounds" for his mandate. Only state governors can do that, or mayors in their cities, and a few other local officials. Let's not forget too that the guy you and the media and the Dems claim f*cked up the rollout is the only reason we even have vaccines. I seem to recall a lot of laughing and pointing and shouting at Trump for claiming he could get a vaccine out there by the end of the year. Fauci laughed at it, as did every single Democrat out there. And yet look what happened. Trump gauranteed the drug companies wouldn't lose their shirts if the vaccine hadn't worked, by preordering hundreds of millions of doses. Which was the only way they'd even have tried under that timeframe. And he loosened the process a bit. For that reason alone, the Democrats and the media don't' get to whine about Trump's vaccine rollout. If it had been them, NO American would have even had a vaccine until late THIS year.
Give it up Achilles, Trump Derangement Syndrome runs deep here. Widespread looting and violence are A-OK here as are promoting events that spawn it. Asking for a peaceful and patriotic response to widespread fraud is not. You seem to be seeing a lack of understanding about how federalism works. Chances are, it is understood, but forgotten about when Orange Man is considered.
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jan 16, 2021 15:26:55 GMT
Does anyone know what's up with those constant Vietnamese language posts here? Can't be spam, because why post in a language I'm guessing not very many people here speak or read... Does anyone know what they say?
|
|
|
Post by noctournem on Jan 16, 2021 23:52:58 GMT
How exactly did he "fuck up" the rollout? Considering that Biden is apparently adopting Trump's plan wholesale, and slapping his name on it, but promising to do better because he's not Orange Man bad or something. As it happens, the current problems with vaccinations aren't anything to do with Trump, but rather governors and mayors effing up the distribution on their end. The states get an allotment of the drugs, and THEY have to decide how to distribute them, as it proper, because those closet to the problem in theory SHOULD know who needs it most, and how to get it out there. However, due to concerns about the speed of development, magnified by months of top Dems from Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Cuomo on down all repeatedly saying, or in Biden's case shouting, that they would NEVER take a vaccine developed under Trump, a large number of medical personnel have declined to take it, leaving does rigidly set for only them to go bad. A few places they've allowed whoever was on hand to get the extra doses rather than let them go bad, but not nearly enough.
None of which IMO absolves Trump of his own problems with respect to the COVID response; but they weren't what the Dems are claiming. His real faults in that respect lay in his inability to understand he should have been a calming presence, a voice of authority when even the "medical" experts were intentionally lying to the public, (see Fauci's big lies that he admitted to because he thought the American public was too stupid to understand math), or claiming that the year's BLM/Antifa riots which they all endorsed would never spread the virus because it can tell they had pure hearts or something. Trump was not that man. Instead, he made it all about him. No one gave a flying...f*ck about him, but he mentioned his own name nearly as often as Obama, and under much worse conditions. He should have been telling people exactly what was going on, instead of whining about whoever was nasty to him that day.
It was said his fans liked him because unlike any of the other Republicans, he fought back against the Democrat's worst excesses. Well and good, I suppose, but I didn't see any of that with him. STFU about yourself is advice I'd have given him, but he obviously didn't.
But no, his powers were limited. Biden or Harris won't be able to order a national mask mandate like he and the media have been claiming, (yes, after he won he did modify his position to the more realistic, "on Federal grounds" for his mandate. Only state governors can do that, or mayors in their cities, and a few other local officials. Let's not forget too that the guy you and the media and the Dems claim f*cked up the rollout is the only reason we even have vaccines. I seem to recall a lot of laughing and pointing and shouting at Trump for claiming he could get a vaccine out there by the end of the year. Fauci laughed at it, as did every single Democrat out there. And yet look what happened. Trump gauranteed the drug companies wouldn't lose their shirts if the vaccine hadn't worked, by preordering hundreds of millions of doses. Which was the only way they'd even have tried under that timeframe. And he loosened the process a bit. For that reason alone, the Democrats and the media don't' get to whine about Trump's vaccine rollout. If it had been them, NO American would have even had a vaccine until late THIS year.
Give it up Achilles, Trump Derangement Syndrome runs deep here. Widespread looting and violence are A-OK here as are promoting events that spawn it. Asking for a peaceful and patriotic response to widespread fraud is not. You seem to be seeing a lack of understanding about how federalism works. Chances are, it is understood, but forgotten about when Orange Man is considered. Complete lies. Want proof? Spektre said it. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Spektre on Jan 17, 2021 9:28:28 GMT
Give it up Achilles, Trump Derangement Syndrome runs deep here. Widespread looting and violence are A-OK here as are promoting events that spawn it. Asking for a peaceful and patriotic response to widespread fraud is not. You seem to be seeing a lack of understanding about how federalism works. Chances are, it is understood, but forgotten about when Orange Man is considered. Complete lies. Want proof? Spektre said it. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk Such is the level of well-thought out arguments coming from the Trump Derangement Syndrome peanut gallery....or perhaps you really don't understand how federalism works...
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jan 17, 2021 16:44:20 GMT
Rest In Pieces to Phil Spector, who kicked the bucket at 81 of Covid. The BBC's headline was "Talented but flawed Phil Spector dies.." Okay...not quite how I'd have phrased it, but there you go. I guess a few years ago they had a headline "Talented but flawed artist Charles Manson dies..."
|
|
|
Post by SporkBot on Jan 17, 2021 16:52:02 GMT
You're apparently confused: Trump is saying fraud occurred in voting held "across the nation", or as could be put another way, "nationwide." Or did you think playing semantics somehow proved there WAS as much fraud as he claimed? Or perhaps you're ignoring how people have always referred to the Presidential election in the singular, not the plural? The "widespread" claims of fraud have been thoroughly debunked. You haven't provided evidence beyond ONE example, which had nothing to do with deception (which fraud, by definition, usually entails). And I didn't say Trump called for violence, I said that he agitated his base with rhetoric about "strength" and "stolen elections" and "being tough". He didn't have to tell people "go hang Mike Pence", he just had to promise the people he intentionally angered that Pence was going to do something he couldn't legally do. At best, he was incompetently negligent. Whether or not he planned or intended them to be violent is irrelevant, it's still his responsibility because of his lies and dismissal of facts that don't serve his narrative, repeated ad nauseum to convince people it's "true", because you can't trust "the mainstream media". Harris was encouraging protests, not the violence or looting which she condemned (I linked to this earlier). She noted the history of racial violence from police, and the stress it's putting on largely black communities, which is why she called for more PROTESTS. Before the march, Trump did not TELL people to be peaceful, he said people WOULD march peacefully, as in something that was expected to happen, not an instruction....it doesn't change the aforementioned rhetoric he used. He did not immediately tell those protestors to go home; he waited, watched the chaos on TV for a while (again, I linked to this), then said, "you're very special, we love you, go home", in a very passive tone. Hardly the kind of decisive, immediate, or commanding strength some would portray it as. Clearly you don't understand what depression is, or how it works. Also, You're research abilities need work, dude. I said I haven't POSTED much. Out of 52 examples of my activity on the list you cited across six months, 30 of those were likes. I made 22 nonconsecutive posts, across various subjects, which you're assuming that it must be bias, even though you don't have all the information at hand, but you're not letting that stop you from jumping to whatever conclusions make you most comfortable. Just because I didn't say something specific at the time about the 2020 violence, on this specific forum, means absolutely nothing to the subject of what those traitors did on Jan 6. Stop trying to change the subject based on personal assumptions. You're intentionally omitting words, and taking what you HAVE used, out of context. I said "everything ELSE wrong...largely because of Trump", specifying the mistakes and errors he made (that he fails to own up to). His frequent lying and perpetuating misinformation, the spread of COVID...actions of HIS, that have ripple effects, consequences, which he doesn't want to personally face. That's not bias, that's looking at facts. The only reason I'm posting as much about this subject (and not trying to change the subjects like you have), is because YOU chose to engage...with faulty info. I was trying to have a civil debate, but you wanted an argument where you were never wrong, despite not having (or providing) the facts. You may not like Trump, but you're continual defense of him can sure be confused for it. Also, WHAT rationality? You seem to think any criticism of Trump, or calling him out on his wrongdoing, or simply stating that what he said was false, is some made up "syndrome"...which is exactly what his supporters do. I don't need to cite my problems with Clinton, Obama, Biden, or either Bush in order to say what Trump is doing/has done, is wrong. But when I said I didn't condone the violence from the 2020 protests, that didn't count. It's like saying "this man is guilty of murder, because we didn't see him NOT kill the victim!". Your obsessive focus on my "bias" is exposing your own hypocrisy. When people are talking about the MORE RECENT attack on the Capitol, and you ask, "but what about the multiple incidents in 2020 that followed black people being killed by police" while making baseless assumptions about what caused the latter, and talking about how those multiple incidents caused more destruction than a single one...you're trying to equate them. Or you are, for some reason, trying to change the subject. Now you're trying to say I can't see the difference? I pointed out that they weren't the same, because you were comparing ONE incident to SEVERAL in terms of damage done and financial cost. Are you also surprised that five desktop computers cost more than a single video game console? Basically, you "win" because you say you do after throwing the game board across the room. A lot like Trump when he lost the election. And because you seemed to have left out some information from that PsychToday article... "There is no shared lay understanding of TDS, mainly because it is a folk category rather than a professional category. As such, there is currently much armchair speculation about the nature and existence of TDS, without consensus." [...] "As such, further research is necessary to investigate the extreme reactions toward President Trump, in the same way that researchers investigate other extreme social phenomena, such as Beatlemania or the like." I provided numerous sources that back up what I say, you've provided very few. This "bias" accusation is based solely on your inability to provide facts that support your case, which also leads to your distraction tactics. Your lack of knowledge does not make you omniscient. You are throwing the label at anyone that calls Trump for what he is...and claiming (again, not proving) that you treat his supporters with equal skepticism doesn't make it right. And even if it WAS a legitimate condition, A) you're in no position to diagnose anyone, no matter how much you disagree with them, and B) it would be still be related to the ACTUAL wrongdoings committed by Trump, so you'd basically be acting like a child "teasing" someone for having PTSD. Where in Section 230 supports this claim? It's about companies not being held legally at-fault if one of their users posts something illegal, and gives them freedom to remove content that violates their guidelines. And because not all social media accounts get equal attention, there's a "Report" feature in case something slips by. No bias, just the law. Also, fun fact: after Trump's ban, misinformation on Twitter dropped by over 70%! I'm not aware of BLM posts "flourishing violence", so I can hardly be biased (especially if I'm not supporting them...see, this is another reason your "bias" claim fails, you're assuming not only that everything you've said is 100%, which I've shown it isn't, but that I am fully aware of these alleged offenses. Maybe STOP assuming...but then you'd have to stop changing the subject) However...prove it. Provide evidence of these posts unfettered, without posts removed or some action taken upon being reported. Not an editorial from some pundit. Enough saying things like they're factual and not doing the research. But bear in mind, the President is going to get a lot more notice on a widely-available social media site than some rando who gets lost in the noise. IF you found one person's post that talked about violence in 2020 protest, you'd have to prove direct connection to subsequent violence, other than the existence of the post. And there's plenty to suggest Trump was responsible for the riot. As for the gay wedding cake example, again, businesses such as those typically reserve the right to refuse service, for a variety of reasons (i.e., "any", the usual umbrella term). However, it is not an infringement on that bakery's freedom/rights of its owners, if locals decide to take their business elsewhere. You've posted very few from what I've seen, and they weren't as damning as you wanted them to be under critical analysis. You're projecting at this point. Again, you're taking my words out of context. You also have no right talking about "logic and consistency" when your own logic of "my assumptions are fact", the entire unstable basis of your "bias" claim, is flawed. You're only consistencies are running from the point and failing to acknowledge when you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Spektre on Jan 17, 2021 20:12:36 GMT
]You're apparently confused: Trump is saying fraud occurred in voting held "across the nation", or as could be put another way, "nationwide." Or did you think playing semantics somehow proved there WAS as much fraud as he claimed? Or perhaps you're ignoring how people have always referred to the Presidential election in the singular, not the plural? If you wish to be semantically inaccurate in your bad-faith argument, you can simple state as much. The "widespread" claims of fraud have been thoroughly debunked. You haven't provided evidence beyond ONE example, which had nothing to do with deception (which fraud, by definition, usually entails). The changing of election law on the fly is widespread fraud. For the third time, this wasn;t someone voting for their grammy. And I didn't say Trump called for violence, I said that he agitated his base with rhetoric about "strength" and "stolen elections" and "being tough". He didn't have to tell people "go hang Mike Pence", he just had to promise the people he intentionally angered that Pence was going to do something he couldn't legally do. At best, he was incompetently negligent. Whether or not he planned or intended them to be violent is irrelevant, it's still his responsibility because of his lies and dismissal of facts that don't serve his narrative, repeated ad nauseum to convince people it's "true", because you can't trust "the mainstream media". Again, doing my best to steel-man your argument which glosses over the widespread election fraud, the rest of your argument does not hang together logically either. A person’s responsibility toward inciting violence with his speech is not contingent on whether or not the content of his speech is factually true or not. It rests solely on a specific, actionable call to violence. Trump did not. Indeed his own words stated that he expected them to march peacefully and patriotically. To be clear, I am not saying Harris made a specific call to violence either. However in terms of some moral responsibility, Harris asked for additional and continuing events that were already known to result in violence over many instances. A first year student studying Bayes’ theorem could explain to you what the expected outcome of such calls would likely result in. Trump had no such initial probability and indeed made his expectations clearly known. Following the violence he called for the protestors to go home. Harris made no such similar calls. Again, sorry Sporkbot, your bias is showing through loud and clear here. Harris was encouraging protests, not the violence or looting which she condemned (I linked to this earlier). She noted the history of racial violence from police, and the stress it's putting on largely black communities, which is why she called for more PROTESTS. Before the march, Trump did not TELL people to be peaceful, he said people WOULD march peacefully, as in something that was expected to happen, not an instruction....it doesn't change the aforementioned rhetoric he used. He did not immediately tell those protestors to go home; he waited, watched the chaos on TV for a while (again, I linked to this), then said, "you're very special, we love you, go home", in a very passive tone. Hardly the kind of decisive, immediate, or commanding strength some would portray it as. I don’t really care how some would portray it. I am stating that objectively, he made calls for something that did not have a history of inciting violence in the past and following the violence, made pleas for the protestors to go home. Harris, on the other hand, had ample information regarding the history of violence and rioting associated with the events she was promoting and made no such pleas for the end of the protests. I hate to bring up Bayes Theorem again, but a first year probability student could tell you that Harris had a far higher expected probability of violence for the events she was calling for than did Trump’s calls. This isn’t debatable. It’s just math. Clearly you don't understand what depression is, or how it works. Also, You're research abilities need work, dude. I said I haven't POSTED much. Out of 52 examples of my activity on the list you cited across six months, 30 of those were likes. I made 22 nonconsecutive posts, across various subjects, which you're assuming that it must be bias, even though you don't have all the information at hand, but you're not letting that stop you from jumping to whatever conclusions make you most comfortable. Just because I didn't say something specific at the time about the 2020 violence, on this specific forum, means absolutely nothing to the subject of what those traitors did on Jan 6. Stop trying to change the subject based on personal assumptions. (sigh) “No evidence of election fraud.” When confronted with evidence it is dismissed. “I haven’t posted here much (as an excuse for not condemning the BLM riots). When presented with over 20 instances of posting here, moving the goalpost to depression or calls with your family or some other such thing. This was YOUR justification man. Stop moving the goalposts. If you had a different reason for not condemning the BLM riots, then say so. Your given reason was that you did not post here much. You're intentionally omitting words, and taking what you HAVE used, out of context. I said "everything ELSE wrong...largely because of Trump", specifying the mistakes and errors he made (that he fails to own up to). His frequent lying and perpetuating misinformation, the spread of COVID...actions of HIS, that have ripple effects, consequences, which he doesn't want to personally face. That's not bias, that's looking at facts. The only reason I'm posting as much about this subject (and not trying to change the subjects like you have), is because YOU chose to engage...with faulty info. I was trying to have a civil debate, but you wanted an argument where you were never wrong, despite not having (or providing) the facts. You may not like Trump, but you're continual defense of him can sure be confused for it. Also, WHAT rationality? You seem to think any criticism of Trump, or calling him out on his wrongdoing, or simply stating that what he said was false, is some made up "syndrome"...which is exactly what his supporters do. I don't need to cite my problems with Clinton, Obama, Biden, or either Bush in order to say what Trump is doing/has done, is wrong. No you don’t. But not choosing to do so certainly is strong evidence for bias. If you want criticism of Trump from me, you’re going to have to move the topic to logically consistent, non-biased, “Orange Man bad” reasoning. The guy was a walking deficit machine, outpacing his predecessor by a good margin. He started trade wars instead of allowing free trade to reassert. He spent time talking of glorious walls instead of discussing how we were going to roll back the social programs put into place. He did not get rid of Obamacare as promised. There is a whole litany of things you can get me to rip on Trump about. That he gave an impassioned speech about campaign fraud is not going to be one of them. But when I said I didn't condone the violence from the 2020 protests, that didn't count. It's like saying "this man is guilty of murder, because we didn't see him NOT kill the victim!". Your obsessive focus on my "bias" is exposing your own hypocrisy. Looking for a consistency of beliefs is certainly not hypocrisy. Your continued defense of the Harris in her support of events associated with violence however, while condemning Trump for doing much less however is. When people are talking about the MORE RECENT attack on the Capitol, and you ask, "but what about the multiple incidents in 2020 that followed black people being killed by police" while making baseless assumptions about what caused the latter, and talking about how those multiple incidents caused more destruction than a single one...you're trying to equate them. Or you are, for some reason, trying to change the subject. Now you're trying to say I can't see the difference? I pointed out that they weren't the same, because you were comparing ONE incident to SEVERAL in terms of damage done and financial cost. Are you also surprised that five desktop computers cost more than a single video game console? No. But I would also recognize that if someone stole five desktop computers, vs. a single video game console, the first incident was the more destructive. And that analysis wouldn’t matter if the one event happened “more recently” than the other. Basically, you "win" because you say you do after throwing the game board across the room. A lot like Trump when he lost the election. And because you seemed to have left out some information from that PsychToday article... "There is no shared lay understanding of TDS, mainly because it is a folk category rather than a professional category. As such, there is currently much armchair speculation about the nature and existence of TDS, without consensus." [...] "As such, further research is necessary to investigate the extreme reactions toward President Trump, in the same way that researchers investigate other extreme social phenomena, such as Beatlemania or the like." Of course there is various “lay speculation”. They are laypeople! The authority in the article carefully laid out the reasoning why some greatly affected by TDS may need psychological support. I provided numerous sources that back up what I say, you've provided very few. This "bias" accusation is based solely on your inability to provide facts that support your case, which also leads to your distraction tactics. Your lack of knowledge does not make you omniscient. You are throwing the label at anyone that calls Trump for what he is...and claiming (again, not proving) that you treat his supporters with equal skepticism doesn't make it right. And even if it WAS a legitimate condition, A) you're in no position to diagnose anyone, no matter how much you disagree with them, and B) it would be still be related to the ACTUAL wrongdoings committed by Trump, so you'd basically be acting like a child "teasing" someone for having PTSD. Teasing someone for PTSD and claiming their responses are stemming from it are quite two separate things. Sorry, you get no “disability points” here for your syndrome. Where in Section 230 supports this claim? It's about companies not being held legally at-fault if one of their users posts something illegal, and gives them freedom to remove content that violates their guidelines. And because not all social media accounts get equal attention, there's a "Report" feature in case something slips by. No bias, just the law. Also, fun fact: after Trump's ban, misinformation on Twitter dropped by over 70%! There is long standing legal precedent that publishers (those that editorialize the and curate their content) are responsible for their publication. Section 230 as you will note, says nothing of their ability to censor. The reason is because during the Section 230 deliberations before Congress, the arguments were made that these services were akin to the telephone company. If someone phones in a bomb threat, you do not hold the telephone company responsible, because they do not curate their content. As such “good faith” language litters the statute. As mentioned previously, fortunately both sides of the aisle see the lack of “good faith” in their performing their “public square” duties. I'm not aware of BLM posts "flourishing violence", so I can hardly be biased (especially if I'm not supporting them...see, this is another reason your "bias" claim fails, you're assuming not only that everything you've said is 100%, which I've shown it isn't, but that I am fully aware of these alleged offenses. Maybe STOP assuming...but then you'd have to stop changing the subject) However...prove it. Provide evidence of these posts unfettered, without posts removed or some action taken upon being reported. Not an editorial from some pundit. Enough saying things like they're factual and not doing the research. But bear in mind, the President is going to get a lot more notice on a widely-available social media site than some rando who gets lost in the noise. IF you found one person's post that talked about violence in 2020 protest, you'd have to prove direct connection to subsequent violence, other than the existence of the post. And there's plenty to suggest Trump was responsible for the riot. I am not even sure what this set of text was in reference to. There are multiple reports of BLM protests being organized on Facebook. BLM has an official page on Facebook which is used for communications of these protests. Twitter did more than allow posts organizing the protests to continue, they even organized their own protest. www.dailycamera.com/2020/06/19/twitter-employees-organize-black-lives-matter-protest-in-boulder/As for the gay wedding cake example, again, businesses such as those typically reserve the right to refuse service, for a variety of reasons (i.e., "any", the usual umbrella term). However, it is not an infringement on that bakery's freedom/rights of its owners, if locals decide to take their business elsewhere. So you would support a baker’s right NOT to provide service to someone based on their sexual orientation or color? Again, you're taking my words out of context. You also have no right talking about "logic and consistency" when your own logic of "my assumptions are fact", the entire unstable basis of your "bias" claim, is flawed. You're only consistencies are running from the point and failing to acknowledge when you're wrong. OK, show these assumptions wrong. Provide evidence of your condemnation of the BLM riots as has been requested. Perhaps at a minimum condemn Harris for encouraging events that already had a widespread history of violence.
|
|
|
Post by liama on Jan 18, 2021 0:50:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by achilles on Jan 18, 2021 11:26:04 GMT
Everyone in the nation should be terrified, as the Los Angeles Times has suggested, and I think they're right, that Biden wants to "Make America California Again". That should terrify you. Let's be clear, California can be a beautiful state...parts of it anyway. It has mostly great or good weather. But, it's become unlivable after decades of Democratic Party total rule. Taxes are the highest in the nation, and crime is at record levels, homelessness is exploding, and the infrastructure is crumbling, and while the Democrats have been pursuing a bullet train from nowhere to nowhere that's running vastly over budget, into the hundreds of billions with no end in sight. Of course we all know where that money is going, and it isn't to trains. People are leaving the state in record numbers as the state becomes too expensive to live in even for those who already own their own houses free and clear, due to the Dem's target of Prop 13, which froze property taxes and allowed the elderly to keep their homes, which many would lose if they had to pay current tax rates---the highest in the nation. State income tax is also the highest in the nation, and I can tell you we get nothing for that money. California is ground zero for the flood of illegal, soon legal under Biden who plans on giving amnesty and then citizenship to every person in the country illegally now, and basically plans on throwing the borders wide open. Which explains the caravan of thousands of Hondurans who have demanded Biden keep his promises to them.
California was a paradise relatively speaking until the Dems ruined it. And it's entirely on them; they've basically ruled the state for three decades, with the Republicans basically frozen out. This, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, (our current murder capitol IIRC), and other strongholds of Democratic power are what the entire nation will become now that the Dems hold the same total power nationally. And don't count on the courts to do anything. They may hold the line occasionally, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by glaeken on Jan 18, 2021 14:02:56 GMT
Everyone in the nation should be terrified, as the Los Angeles Times has suggested, and I think they're right, that Biden wants to "Make America California Again". That should terrify you. Let's be clear, California can be a beautiful state...parts of it anyway. It has mostly great or good weather. But, it's become unlivable after decades of Democratic Party total rule. Taxes are the highest in the nation, and crime is at record levels, homelessness is exploding, and the infrastructure is crumbling, and while the Democrats have been pursuing a bullet train from nowhere to nowhere that's running vastly over budget, into the hundreds of billions with no end in sight. Of course we all know where that money is going, and it isn't to trains. People are leaving the state in record numbers as the state becomes too expensive to live in even for those who already own their own houses free and clear, due to the Dem's target of Prop 13, which froze property taxes and allowed the elderly to keep their homes, which many would lose if they had to pay current tax rates---the highest in the nation. State income tax is also the highest in the nation, and I can tell you we get nothing for that money. California is ground zero for the flood of illegal, soon legal under Biden who plans on giving amnesty and then citizenship to every person in the country illegally now, and basically plans on throwing the borders wide open. Which explains the caravan of thousands of Hondurans who have demanded Biden keep his promises to them.
California was a paradise relatively speaking until the Dems ruined it. And it's entirely on them; they've basically ruled the state for three decades, with the Republicans basically frozen out. This, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, (our current murder capitol IIRC), and other strongholds of Democratic power are what the entire nation will become now that the Dems hold the same total power nationally. And don't count on the courts to do anything. They may hold the line occasionally, but that's about it.
With Biden having been a supporter of Gavin Newsom, it makes no surprise.
|
|