Remember Nanny Loyal's rules - a few posts then move on.
That said - we are so F-ed. He is worse than the last 3.
That said - we are so F-ed. He is worse than the last 3.
Electoral College idiocy
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
For those that think that the GOP hasn't changed, that dude encapsulates the GOP's conversion to a Trump cult.
Of course it's a Trump follower. All of the candidates were tripping over each other trying to get his endorsement, it was never going to turn out another way.
The entire GOP is a Donald personality cult. Even the ones who aren't his open and dedicated disciples are forced to get on board, just to avoid being openly ridiculed and pushed to the party fridge. God forbid Donald thinks you're a RINO.
It really is pretty Nazi-esque.
The entire GOP is a Donald personality cult. Even the ones who aren't his open and dedicated disciples are forced to get on board, just to avoid being openly ridiculed and pushed to the party fridge. God forbid Donald thinks you're a RINO.
It really is pretty Nazi-esque.
I hope he does great. I'd say anyone is better than McCarthy, because he's a snake and a loser...but Pelosi.
I'll be happy with those two things to start.
- No more funding to Ukraine
- Release the Jan 6 tapes
I'll be happy with those two things to start.
Awfully shortsighted.
What is it you want to learn from the tapes. But release them. Then pay attention to what is happening in Georgia. Lots of rats jumping off the ship.
What Jan 6 tapes? anything that hasn't been shown on TV already (probably not much) is not going to make your hero Trump look any better.
End Ukraine funding? OK dude, whatever.
Dems screw up as they usually do. They should have nominated Liz Cheney a week a go and get someone who at least believes in the constitution.
I’m not informed on such matters but if I had to guess they are probably in Hillary’s emails, right next to Obama’s birth certificate on Hunters laptop.
Exactly wtf it is with right wing loonies regurgitating Russian propaganda about Ukraine is anybody’s guess. Apparently the MAGA crowd pines for the day when Vlad will restore the glory of the Soviet Union.
I'm a right winger, but it drives me nuts the inconsistency of many on the right on military intervention in the world. Bosnia? Get out! Iraq and Afghanistan? Go get 'em! Ukraine? Stop it! Israel? They need our help! The only common factor here is who is president.
But it goes the same for the left. Bosnia? They need us! Iraq and Afghanistan? Illegal war! Ukraine? Russia is evil! Israel? We hate them Jews! Again, it's about who is president.
For my part, if we think action internationally is helpful to the US or part of an alliance, we should be involved. For me, that means helping Ukraine keep out Putin and his monsters. For Israel, they are our allies and we are obligated to provide assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan started out rooting out terrorists, then morphed into nation building. Bosnia? That was so long ago I can't remember.
Hear you dude. I am sort of an isolationist, But I am all in on helping Ukraine and Israel (although I don't know why Israel needs much help). Ukraine - that is a tough one though. We have spent billions of my grandkids money already, but what do we do? Europe needs to step up more. And F Russia. What are they doing at this point? Just killing the civilians that they hoped would be good Russian subjects until they murdered them? Putin needs to be assassinated. That is the only answer. Don't know why we can't track his location and send a missile through his window. And tell the world your goddam right we did it (like Nicholson in A Few Good Men). Any other ruler want the same? Step on up.I'm a right winger, but it drives me nuts the inconsistency of many on the right on military intervention in the world. Bosnia? Get out! Iraq and Afghanistan? Go get 'em! Ukraine? Stop it! Israel? They need our help! The only common factor here is who is president.
But it goes the same for the left. Bosnia? They need us! Iraq and Afghanistan? Illegal war! Ukraine? Russia is evil! Israel? We hate them Jews! Again, it's about who is president.
For my part, if we think action internationally is helpful to the US or part of an alliance, we should be involved. For me, that means helping Ukraine keep out Putin and his monsters. For Israel, they are our allies and we are obligated to provide assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan started out rooting out terrorists, then morphed into nation building. Bosnia? That was so long ago I can't remember.
And since this is a Mike Johnson thread, the more I read the scarier it gets. Opposed to ALL abortions. Election denier, actively conspired to overturn it. All kinds of other shit would make most right wingers pale.
The national debt is now at 33 trillion and climbing, that is a about $100,000 for every man, woman, child, and LBGQT person in this country, or about $252,000 per household. As a side note the average mortgage balance in the US is about $220,000. We should support our allies, but at some point, we need to look at our bank account, and ask, how much do we have available? If not, our own future is a problem.
Viewed simply from an economic perspective, every buck in material we send to Ukraine bleeds more than a buck from Russia, and that is not limited to money. In the same way that we have Vietnam vets, Russia has a lot of Afghanistan vets. Ukraine has turned into another Afghanistan for Russia, against a better armed opponent. Their Afghanistan vets are spread all across the country and are talking more and louder as the months pass, and they are a group that Putin cannot afford to try to muzzle. For those who question whether it is in our national interest to help bleed Russia, I can only respond that the very fact that Czar Putin chose to invade gives you all the justification you should need.
Israel? The US was finally ready to force them to the bargaining table in a serious manner over Gaza when 9/11 happened. Then the moment was gone and has not returned. The Palestinian people can thank the Saudi extremists for that. Israel is now clearly in the process of overplaying their hand. Either they wake up or they will recreate a political environment not seen since just prior to 9/11. That is in their hands. Restraint is much harder than a knee-jerk reaction, and I don't know if there are enough fully rational people in Israel right now to alter their course.
As for the current speaker of the house, he will go one of two ways. Either he will continue with the tinfoil hat echo chamber of lies approach to public speaking, or he will decide this is his moment to at least make an effort to be a statesman. If he proceeds with the former, he is probably handing the democrats the house in the next election. If he proceeds with the latter, he risks crucifixion by the Marjorie Taylor Greene's and other brainless ones. Tough job, walking a tightrope. But he asked for the job, so now it is his duty (and I use that word deliberately) to do his absolute best.
Israel? The US was finally ready to force them to the bargaining table in a serious manner over Gaza when 9/11 happened. Then the moment was gone and has not returned. The Palestinian people can thank the Saudi extremists for that. Israel is now clearly in the process of overplaying their hand. Either they wake up or they will recreate a political environment not seen since just prior to 9/11. That is in their hands. Restraint is much harder than a knee-jerk reaction, and I don't know if there are enough fully rational people in Israel right now to alter their course.
As for the current speaker of the house, he will go one of two ways. Either he will continue with the tinfoil hat echo chamber of lies approach to public speaking, or he will decide this is his moment to at least make an effort to be a statesman. If he proceeds with the former, he is probably handing the democrats the house in the next election. If he proceeds with the latter, he risks crucifixion by the Marjorie Taylor Greene's and other brainless ones. Tough job, walking a tightrope. But he asked for the job, so now it is his duty (and I use that word deliberately) to do his absolute best.
I'd like to see the math on that. Remember that it costs way, way less to produce munitions and supplies in Russia, and Russian soldiers get paid approximately jack squat. And we're not just paying for war materiel. The US is essentially bankrolling the entire state of Ukraine.
Jesus the over reaction of some on here is mind blowing. The fact that these politicians are living rent free in a lot of your heads is comical. Imagine being so bent out of shape over something so benign as to who the speaker of the house is has to be on par with a 5 year throwing a massive tantrum in public because he can't get the shiny new toy he saw at the store. By far the worst of the worst Speaker of the House was Nancy Pelosi. Holy hell what a hypocritical, scheming, lying drunk she was. Insider trading, the Obamacare "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" stupidity, going to a hair salon MASKLESS (the nerve!!) during strict CA lockdowns that she promoted and endorsed...... She is exactly the reason why we need term limits. Hags like that old wrinkled bag of bones are getting fat while everyone below her suffers.
Gib, I'll just offer a few thoughts on why I made the statement I did.
The on-going estimates I've seen over the years estimate the rake-off on Russian defense spending at somewhere in the 25-35% range.
Russian soldiers don't get paid much, as you say, but they are forced to keep a lot more of them on the payroll during a conflict...they can't afford to pull them from the China border or other potential risk areas, and they have to rotate troops in Ukraine or the desertion rate would kill them.
Because the Russians don't have much of a professional line military left, they use more munitions than they would if they could use them effectively.
When the Wagner experiment went down the drain, Russia was forced to spend money in other arenas so they could scrounge troops for the Ukranian front.
Then there are corollary costs that Russia has that we do not...medical in particular, but other things as well. Just the bribery and extortion costs they pay for Iranian help (I wonder how much they pay the Iranians for each drone?) has to be huge.
And as I said, the costs are not limited to money. Russia's Afghanistan vets are even more cynical than our Vietnam vets, as a group. They are apparently now a serious problem from a cultural legitimacy perspective for Putin, and he can't really do anything to them. He was forced to try to move his troops and substitute the Wagner criminals/inmates to ease the social pressure due to his military casualties, then even the Wagner leader could not take the casualties and limited munitions support anymore. Now he has had to co-opt what ever Wagner folks he could get while trying to integrate them with his conventional armed forces...and that is a mixed bag from a success standpoint. The pressures at home are increasing with the increased military casualties.
I can't annotate sources for all the above, but I pay attention and I've seen most of this from sources that are generally credible. Putin has his t*t in a wringer and his only real option is to try to outlast Ukraine. Which won't be hard if we let the tinfoil hat crew in congress pull the plug. They've wasted untold amounts of money on unnecessary stimulus and a host of other things. Ukraine right now is not the time or place to suddenly remember that we have a budget.
The on-going estimates I've seen over the years estimate the rake-off on Russian defense spending at somewhere in the 25-35% range.
Russian soldiers don't get paid much, as you say, but they are forced to keep a lot more of them on the payroll during a conflict...they can't afford to pull them from the China border or other potential risk areas, and they have to rotate troops in Ukraine or the desertion rate would kill them.
Because the Russians don't have much of a professional line military left, they use more munitions than they would if they could use them effectively.
When the Wagner experiment went down the drain, Russia was forced to spend money in other arenas so they could scrounge troops for the Ukranian front.
Then there are corollary costs that Russia has that we do not...medical in particular, but other things as well. Just the bribery and extortion costs they pay for Iranian help (I wonder how much they pay the Iranians for each drone?) has to be huge.
And as I said, the costs are not limited to money. Russia's Afghanistan vets are even more cynical than our Vietnam vets, as a group. They are apparently now a serious problem from a cultural legitimacy perspective for Putin, and he can't really do anything to them. He was forced to try to move his troops and substitute the Wagner criminals/inmates to ease the social pressure due to his military casualties, then even the Wagner leader could not take the casualties and limited munitions support anymore. Now he has had to co-opt what ever Wagner folks he could get while trying to integrate them with his conventional armed forces...and that is a mixed bag from a success standpoint. The pressures at home are increasing with the increased military casualties.
I can't annotate sources for all the above, but I pay attention and I've seen most of this from sources that are generally credible. Putin has his t*t in a wringer and his only real option is to try to outlast Ukraine. Which won't be hard if we let the tinfoil hat crew in congress pull the plug. They've wasted untold amounts of money on unnecessary stimulus and a host of other things. Ukraine right now is not the time or place to suddenly remember that we have a budget.
You need to start charging Pelosi rent! That's all I have to say about that!
Ukraine is exactly the right time to remember we have a budget. It is the definition of an optional expense.
We can afford it. This country can spend money like no other in the world. As long as the rest of the world parks their money in our t-bills this can continue. It has been going on for decades. Taihtsat
wait until a woman who is close to you gets raped and ends up pregnant. Then let's check your perspective. Last comment on this from me.
How do you turn a thread about Mike Johnson, morphing into a discussion about Ukraine, into an attack on Nancy Pelosi? Whether you like her or hate her, she has what to do with this?.
"something so benign as to who the Speaker of the House is"? Wow - not even going to touch that one, except to say, 2nd in line to the Presidency.
I do agree with you on term limits.
Last edited:
This entire thread is devoted to the content of character of who the speaker of the house is. Pelosi was by far and away the worst and there wasn't one mention of her corrupt/shady azz in the prior 4 years she occupied that spot nor the other times she did during the Obama years. Mike Johnson literally took over like 5 minutes ago and you're on here yelling about how the sky is falling. My goodness bro. At least give the guy a chance to prove himself worthy to be there before you lose your mind.
Maybe you should start collecting from Trump? I try to stay out of the political discussions because at the end of the day, not one single person on here will change their political beliefs. So, whats the point? As far as Pelosi goes, I was just pointing out the glaringly obvious.
We spend over $800 billion per year on defense spending. If we spend $40 billion in Ukraine....roughly 5% of our overall, I'd argue that weakening Russia is the best use of that money. If China was invading Thailand,, it would be worth $80 billion per year to keep China bleeding.
Weakening our foes is arguably more effective than just building huge armies to eventually face off directly.
Yeah, because the kid deserves to die because his father was a POS.
Again...you are allowed your perspective but I think that I'd let the raped woman make the choice and let God be the judge....not you or anyone else on this board.
Spain: can’t believe you leftist libtard antifas let these politicians live rent free in your head!
Also Spain: Nance Pelosi has had an ocean view penthouse inside my noggin for the last decade!
I’m not judging any more than any other murder. Whether it is a 20 year old, 2 year old, or a newly conceived baby, the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder. We ought to judge the act the same.
I’m with you on the 20 year old and the 2 year old. With the newly conceived thought, that’s a tougher sell.
There’s no crime or other act that can suddenly give a woman a 2 year old that she never wanted. A rape can give her a baby she didn’t want. While that’s not the baby’s fault, it’s also not the woman’s…so why punish her?
And, where is that line drawn? If she finds she’s pregnant 6 weeks after the rape? What if she’s given the morning after pill in the 48 hours after the rape and self-aborts? Is that still murder?
What if she’s got an IUD with similar effect? Murder or not?
A mass of cells without conscious thought is no more a “baby” than the millions of sperm you kill every time you procreate in your bathroom sink.
Murder is an interesting term here. If someone breaks into your home you shoot them dead…self defense right? Mother finds out delivering a baby will likely kill her (btw no guarantee baby will survive either)…same thing apply? this scenario doesn’t exists in a vacuum either, what if she has 3 other kids? They should grow up without a mom?
You can say that the three are the same.....and a lot of people disagree with you. Insurance companies won't sell you life insurance for an unborn baby. If the three are the same, why can't you claim an unborn child as a dependent on your taxes? If that innocent human being has full rights, should a woman in poverty with kids be able to claim that additional unborn child in her monthly welfare benefits? She's feeding an extra kid after all.
(HINT: You're answer is no because you really don't give a sh!t about children at all. The abortion debate is just political BS that you've been suckered into caring about)
PS: I've already said that I don't believe in permanent welfare benefits....I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of "think of the child!" while you are quietly thinking "as long as it doesn't impact me!"
Of course, the thing that makes me laugh the most about this argument is that you will vote for a man like Donald Trump and even though there is no documentation....I guarantee that man has paid off woman to get them to have abortions...along with a lot of other Republicans who've done the same as they pretend to care about unborn children.
And finally, I find it ironic that you want to take away all the "weapons" that abortion activists want to use to carry out abortions...because by God, abortion is evil, but when a mass shooting that involves children happens, you say, "The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and the lives of other people's children is a sacrifice that I'm willing to make!"
PPS: I do believe in gun ownership...but I believe in "well regulated"....just like the Constitution actually says.
It is a very emotional issue . Do you believe it is easy for those who chose to have one ?
Let me ask you the following scenario . If i was a woman , and i was raped but say i live in Indiana . And i am determined not to carry out my pregnancy . I am so distraught i attempt to take my life .
I survive but because of my actions should i be charged with murder or manslaughter ? Why or why not .
Someone breaking into your home doesn't necessarily guarantee you the right to shoot and kill them. Self defense requires the admission that 1) you killed someone but 2) the level of action you took was necessary to protect yourself from harm. Any action taken after the threat has stopped is no longer self defense. Murder is never OK, but it is justifiable to use force to defend life. Even lethal force. Ultimately the second amendment is a right of self defense.
With regards to abortion and self defense, the discussion usually misses the point. In the case of a pregnant woman having cancer, it would not be immoral for her to undergo chemotherapy to treat the cancer. Even though the treatment would likely result in the death of her unborn child. But it would be immoral to have an abortion prior to undergoing treatment for the cancer. While the outcome is the same, the path taken to get there determines whether or not something is right or wrong.
What if the doctor says that the baby is going to die due to the chemo and she will likely die if she has the abortion after she has started chemo due to her weakened condition?
No one has died in your scenario. So neither. If you were trying to kill yourself, I suppose that would fall under a reckless indangerment statute for the unborn child. If your state of mind is to kill the child and not yourself, then it would be attempted murder.
Doctors can't give a permission slip to do evil. Much as a police officer telling you so and so is a threat and you'd never be able to protect yourself if they broke into your home, so you should shoot them in the street to protect yourself and your family.
Similar threads
