Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Civil War is not here More

Civil War is not here

Comments Filter:
  • Your guy lost - again. What will you do when he loses for a third time, if the electoral college doesn't hand him a second "win"? Your team already attempted to sack congress when the results didn't line up with your wishes, will you go further in 2025? Your team is already laying the groundwork for declaring any results they don't like to be "fraudulent".

    • Your team already attempted to sack congress

      Please.

      • Your team already attempted to sack congress

        Please.

        Every single person who has faced charges in the January 6th insurrection has been from your team.

        Every.
        Single.
        One.

        Your team claimed there were "Antifa", "BLM", and others in there yet not one has been found. Not a single one.

        That still leaves the question of what will your team do January 2025 when your guy loses the popular vote for a third time, after he's put so much energy into telling people that any result that doesn't favor him is "fraud" or "fake news". Will your team attack congress agai

        • Every single person who has faced charges in the January 6th insurrection has been from your team.

          "Your Team" faps that thing like a magic wand. Only: there is no magic. The Cheney rebuke will be generalized.

          • Every single person who has faced charges in the January 6th insurrection has been from your team.

            "Your Team" faps that thing like a magic wand. Only: there is no magic.

            Why do you think someone is looking for magic? There is no need for magic when there are facts here. The fact of the matter is that your dear leader incited a riot at the capital. Just because your team twisted and wriggled to find excuses not to convict him on this case doesn't mean the rioters were there for any other reason. Look at the confessions of the convicted insurrectionists, they're public record.

            • There is no need for magic when there are facts here.

              Always with the "f" word. We'll see how the court of public opinion decides here in November.

              • There is no need for magic when there are facts here.

                Always with the "f" word.

                You've made it very clear you don't like facts much any more. Not that long ago you would have never taken such a clear anti-fact stance, especially to defend your team.

                We'll see how the court of public opinion decides here in November.

                Fortunately the mid-term elections are a little more difficult to sway with an October Surprise. I'm sure we'll see the 2024 gloves come off by this Thanksgiving as your team starts fielding contenders who want to share the stage with your dear leader.

                • Your vain repetitions do not "facts" make.

                  • Your vain repetitions do not "facts" make.

                    We were talking about the January 6th insurrection. I told you that everyone who has been convicted or plead guilty is a Trump supporter, and that it is supported by facts. Can you show that there were any who were not? That would be a fact that would be meaningful here. It is entirely possible that I missed someone in the cases, feel free to point them out.

                    • There was no "insurrection", but fappers gonna fap.

                    • There was no "insurrection", but fappers gonna fap.

                      Let's look at what an insurrection is. According to Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]:

                      inÂâsurÂârecÂâtion ËOEin(t)-sÉ(TM)-Ërek-shÉ(TM)n
                      : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

                      The January 6th folks who attacked the capitol were most certainly revolting against an established government. It was indeed an insurrection.

                      Now that we've established you were wrong on that, do you have something to counter all the charged insurrectionists being Trump supporters or would you prefer to change the subject?

                    • It is abundantly clear that the "Your Deep State Team" hath decreed that Donald Trump is precluded from running for office. Check out Mike Davis, though => https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/08/26/three-minutes-of-pure-sunlight-the-truth-and-the-constitution-are-president-trumps-weapons/ [theconserv...ehouse.com]
                    • OK so you've opted to change the subject I see. I figured you would have doubled-down on your previous weird conspiracy of 'it's not an insurrection unless everyone has a signed and notarized manifesto with their name on it' but you're going for your "deep state" funnies instead.

                      Being as your hero has already twice lost the popular vote, and he's still the least qualified person ever to sit at the Resolute Desk, why would the democrats be afraid to run against him? He'd be in pretty rare air to lose t

                    • There is no "left", but fappers gonna fap.

                      Sorry, but I felt so compelled to fix that for you

                    • OK, insert your symbol if "left" offends. Macht nichts.
                    • You're standing in the resulting wreckage denying all the causes. Your "will to hogwash" continues to astound. Stay beautiful.

                    • :-) You can't offend me..

                      Bourgeoisie in place of "left" is perfectly cromulent. That is really what these people are. "banal" also works. But "left"? They're old hippies, retired in Cambodia, left the States a long time ago

                    • You're standing in the resulting wreckage denying all the causes.

                      What "wreckage" are you referring to that you are so certain was caused by President Biden? You keep calling him feeble and incompetent, that seems contradictory to your claim of him installing some sort of New World Order. Being as he has signed almost no legislation of any real consequence in the past 1.5+ years it would seem much more rational to assign any issues we're seeing to the administration that precluded his.

                    • Now you've lost me.

                      Bourgeoisie in place of "left" is perfectly cromulent.

                      It's a pyramid scheme, with the tip and the base conspiring against the middle.

                    • What "wreckage" are you referring to that you are so certain was caused by President Biden?

                      OK, ok, ok: Zombie Joe and the Party he's been attending for the past two score years.

                    • What "wreckage" are you referring to that you are so certain was caused by President Biden?

                      he's been attending for the past two score years.

                      Could you possibly come up with something more vague than that statement? If you're going to point out he's been a democrat for over 40 years, then either he really, really, loves the long game or indeed he hasn't done anything. Certainly he hasn't done much of anything so far as POTUS but what could you dream up that he did before that brought about "wreckage"?

                    • loves the long game or indeed he hasn't done anything.

                      Pure as the driven snow
                      Good old Zombie Joe
                      Those, however, in the know
                      Realize it's Hunter's blow

  • Wait (Score:3)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday August 20, 2022 @12:28PM (#62806425) Journal

    If you claim he won the 2nd time then he's ineligible to run a 3rd time.

    Can't have it both ways, pal- either your orange crush LOST, in which case he could run again, but if he WON then he has to just fuck off back to whatever overdecorated apartment he came from.

    And no, the election wasn't stolen, so get some new material, Trumptard.

    • 22A doesn't account for hinky results => https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html [usconstitution.net]

      • Nah, I've got better things to do than follow your spam and disinformation links.

        • I mean, it's just the source document, but carry on.

          • If I wanted to hear lies I'd just listen to Trump.

            • Hmm, even I find your presumptuousness very disappointing. I expected better. Since when is the 22nd amendment to the constitution a lie??

              • I mean, the Left has effectively cancelled the Constitution, yes.

                I'm still waiting for the glorious moment when English and the Roman alphabet, those hoary bastions of -ist-ite-ism, are cancelled.

                We're well on the way to total illiteracy with a smattering of emoji to keep the proles in line, praise Cthulhu.

                • :-) Once again.. there is no "left"

                  • Of course not. Yet these are the terms we use to communicate.

                    • Well, that would explain the trouble then, wouldn't it? Using terms that don't fit will invariably cause a misdiagnosis of the situation and lead to false conclusions

                    • Are you implying that an absolutely correct answer obtains? Share.

                    • Misuse of terms, like "left", is intentional to distract and confound the audience. There is no "left" in the desire for wealth/power..

                    • OK, the aristocracy.

                    • :-) Well, that certainly includes your peeps!

                    • Excuse me?

                    • You support all sorts of aristocrats, still a mystery why you pick those ones you always mention, they're more of a servant to the real ones, groveling wannabes. I suspect you can do better

                    • No mystery: they're who's on the ballot. You non-alternative alternatives are tantamount to embrace of the status quo.

                    • they're who's on the ballot.

                      You help put them there. You usually have more than two options, but you seem to just "go with the flow" and choose what everybody else chooses whether they're any good or not. Don't know why you go with such low standards

                    • I'm going to fall short of instructing others on how to vote. Serving as an election officer, I encourage people *to* vote, and that's it.

                      You're cordially invited to execute your personal unit of political power by writing in Mickey Monkey-Fighting Mouse, if that's your pleasure.

                      You can quite legally turn in a blank "non of the above" ballot to signal displeasure with the usual suspects.

                      You can vote for the candidate that does the least-worst job of failing to adhere to the party platform that conform

                    • Of course you can vote for who you want, But you don't fool anybody when you say you're voting against the Status Quo® when you clearly don't

                    • "Clearly"

                      It's not that I can explicitly refute you; it's the amusement at "clearly", as though you had a "clear" vision of an actual course of action.

                      Stand and deliver, if you do.

                    • Told you a million times, seek out independents not beholden to party and corp

                    • Why can't we pursue something easier like pursue unicorns? I'll buy your both-sides-ism, because the actual shots at improvement are (a) a Convention of States, or (b) the total collapse which our Deep State idiots will doubtless trigger ahead of accepting (a).

Slashdot Top Deals

To save a single life is better than to build a seven story pagoda.

Close