damn_registrars's Journal: We've seen this play before...

We're hearing lots of chatter about the screw-up son of the current POTUS - a respectable politician focused on trying to undo the destruction from his immediate predecessor - and his history of drug issues. We've seen that play before.

What happened last time we saw this? The screw-up son bravely quit drinking and using drugs some time in his 50s, then got elected governor of a screw-up state. Then friends of his daddy helped him become POTUS himself.

Then of course he started two unjustified wars that cost us the lives of thousands of US service members and trillions of US dollars.

Let's hope at least the last part doesn't repeat. It would seem all it would need to happen is for Hunter Biden to renounce the democratic party and run for the GOP nomination. After the GOP delivered our country its first non-believer POTUS, it would seem he wouldn't even need a "come to Jesus" moment to pull that off.

"We've seen that play before."

[smittyoneeach]

Are you equating "Bagman" Hunter Biden with George W. Bush?

As a theological matter, you're quite correct: all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. You or I are as much a sinner as Hunter.

The only thing admirable about Hunter is that his heart hasn't exploded outright from the amount of dope he's done.

The information leaking out about how much the government has run interference [redstate.com] for the Biden crime family is truly staggering.

Total farce.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Total farce.

But let's reelect them anyway.. I mean, what the hell... we can always blame the crowd for whatever choices we make, right?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

whatever choices we make

Still waiting on you to proffer a viable alternative. As noted elsewhere, I voted Ross Perot in '92. A purely transient, Pyrrhic victory, as we got Bubba LoveMuffin. The ship of state doesn't turn on a dime; compromise is accepting a bit less rudder, without sacrificing the desired course. So: name a name or remain nebulous, sir.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Are you equating "Bagman" Hunter Biden with George W. Bush?

I have never head that nickname. I presume it is some sort of silly conservative reference to his drug use.

That said, yes I am equating them. GWB - who quickly fell from godlike conservative hero after 9/11 to almost completely forgotten ex-POTUS during the Trump Administration - himself had problems with drug and alcohol use. He was also an embarrassment to the name and legacy of his family. He also had an uncanny ability to fail up.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

yes I am equating them

This is a silliness unique to this site, and says more of your psychological need to rationalize than any reasonable comparison of the men in question.

W is a centrist toolbag who was relatively better than Al "No Glaciers for You" Gore and John "WEF Toolbag" Kerry.

Hunter Biden is a depraved Fredo [wikipedia.org] whose antics underscore the two-tiered system of justice that afflicts us.

It looks like they're setting up to pin the WH coke on the VP, so that they can put someone else in place, since Judas Joe really coul

Re:

[damn_registrars]

W is a centrist toolbag

Prior to President Lawnchair, GWB was the most conservative POTUS in the history of our country. Under GWB your team moved far enough right to exclude Lincoln. While GWB's father was slightly right-of-center, he took heat for calling out Reaganomics for what it was (a giant hoax). GWB opted to try to resurrect Reaganomics.

Of course then your team put an even bigger maniac in the White House after President Lawnchair. Trump invoked Reaganomics 3.0 to the expected level of destruction. He moved your

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

This is the first time I've heard of that conspiracy.

Uh-huh [redstate.com]:

So-called officials have adjusted the alleged original location of the baggie of illegal drugs four times since Sunday, with it first being discovered "near" the White House according to reports, then the White House library, then in a "work area" close to the West Wing, and now "in a cubby near the White House's West Executive entrance" in close proximity to the Situation Room, which MSNBC noted was "near where -- for example -- the Vice President's vehicle is parked."

But I figure you knew that.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So-called officials have adjusted the alleged original location of the baggie of illegal drugs four times since Sunday, with it first being discovered "near" the White House according to reports, then the White House library, then in a "work area" close to the West Wing, and now "in a cubby near the White House's West Executive entrance" in close proximity to the Situation Room, which MSNBC noted was "near where -- for example -- the Vice President's vehicle is parked."

Being as that all came from some of your fellow cheerleaders from a partisan website, I'll retain my right to be skeptical on the matter. We'll see what is actually determined on this as time goes on. You are of course free to continue inserting your favorite conspiracies behind it, as I've no doubt you will.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

that all came from some of your fellow cheerleaders

Uhhh...MSNBC noted was "near where -- for example -- the Vice President's vehicle is parked." [twitter.com]

Re:

[damn_registrars]

that all came from some of your fellow cheerleaders

Uhhh...MSNBC noted was "near where -- for example -- the Vice President's vehicle is parked."

At least three things make that absurd:

• You're assuming it's totally credible to assume that VP Harris just runs around with coke and would drop it anywhere
• Your friends from the RNC very carefully edited that news clip, we can't see what was said after it
• Being as your own teammates have multiple coke users in their midst, why would they see this as a valid reason to remove the VP or to have her pushed out (unless you're hoping you can get her to change teams, of course)?

And for that matter, we know the PO

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're way over your skis here. The whole point is that "Your Team" is throwing out all kinds of chaff to cover for what sure looks like a list of issues. I have connected no dots whatsoever. There would first need to be a legitimate justice system, and then a fair trial. Two things not exactly in view as far as I can tell when "Your Team" is involved.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

WHO do you want tried, and for what? Your team is fond of various iterations of "lock her up", but what is the crime that you have imagined now that warrants criminal punishment?

You are the first person I've heard claim that the democrats are plotting to get rid of VP Harris. You should take a moment to think about that. It doesn't mean you are cutting edge, it merely means you are further into the fringe than what I normally read. You have hardly let a conspiracy pass you by without sharing it on s

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"Want", as in, a personal preference? The whole sorry lot of them, which won't occur until then meet the Almighty.

Does it bother you that I can be content with the ultimate theological resolution?

Am I supposed to be enraged or something to discover that our system is as a collapsed Tower of Babel?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

"Want", as in, a personal preference?

Well you certainly haven't produced any credible evidence of crimes committed by elected officials who are not from your team, but you haven't been worried about that before.

The whole sorry lot of them,

On what charges? As hard as your team is trying it is not yet a crime to not be a Trumpublican.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well you certainly haven't produced any credible evidence of crimes

Sweet, sweet motorized goalposts! Thank you for being beautiful.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Well you certainly haven't produced any credible evidence of crimes

(silly insult)

Usually criminal prosecution begins when there is some reasonable connection between the accused and some sort of crime. The only crime you have accused them of is of not being on the right team - which last time I checked is not yet a criminal offense.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

(silly insult)

In what specific what was a goalpost invocation pejorative?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"what specific way"

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You are insulting the fact that you have provided no evidence of crimes. You are not insulting me, but you are discarding and insulting the facts about the fact that you have no evidence upon which to build a prosecution. Being as you can't even go to far as to say what the charges would be, I guess that is in line. I fully expect that if your team manages to reinstall the Donald as POTUS they will promptly get to work on making it illegal to not be part of their team, and of course they will tell us tha

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You are insulting the fact that you have provided no evidence of crimes.

I have anthropomorphized a fact to an insultable level. Your efforts to insult that the crap cabaret before us be taken seriously are completely laughable. Hahahaha.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You are insulting the fact that you have provided no evidence of crimes.

I have anthropomorphized a fact to an insultable level.

I already told you, I am not insulted by your lack of facts. You have insulted the facts themselves by not having any. You could just try sticking to writing about things connected to reality for a while, though that would make your topics a whole lot less sensational.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Let's just go ahead and declare you the winner, in all of your galactic awesomeness.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I am not trying to "win" here, for whatever that may mean to you this week. I'm asking you to support your conspiracies with facts. That isn't a lot to ask. You place your faith in your favorite conspiracies, and as best I can tell you just quietly discard them later once you realize they have no factual support. If you had one that you shared before that I called a conspiracy and it came later to be supported by fact, please show it.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

It's your game. You win. You're the greatest.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

No. There is no game here. I'm asking you for facts to support your conspiracies. You've asserted before that they will come true over time. I'm not aware of one that has lived up to that promise. Can you even find one that I called a conspiracy that turned out to have factual support?