Occam's Banana
Moderator

Bud, you know full well where I stand. But there is such a thing as letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, or at least the "not as bad". I guess it comes down to what particular issues you prioritize, and I respect that. As you know I don't like Trump, and I have a lot of issues with a lot of his policy positions. But when I look at what the D's are doing as a whole, I see a not insignificant difference between them and the "MAGA" wing of the R's. To a certain extent, I agree with you that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... Michael Malice says that the R's are just D's driving the speed limit, and I fully agree with that. But wouldn't you rather take your chances going 65 MPH vs. going 95 MPH? At 65 MPH, we at least have a chance to course-correct. The whole situation sucks, no doubt. But to stand on the sidelines is to effectively enable the greater of two evils. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the food shortages, the neo-fascist, total state controlled society that they (and I mean ALL of them) are driving us toward. But if that's the direction we're heading, I want more time between now and when we get there. And in my view, it is the left which is pushing to get us there fastest. Between now and then, we can store food, stockpile pews, and by chance change a few more minds in the hopes of averting this oncoming tragedy of human civilization. The fact of the matter is, none of this is going to be accomplished within a day, a week, a month or a year. But, to me, it doesn't make sense to shorten the timeframe we have to accomplish all we must accomplish.

Thanks for the idea, the closest airport is 125 miles each way but I suppose it's worth a phone call.

//

"They thought Trump was the river but he was the dam." -- Michael Malice

If they are such an "overwhelming swath", then 3rd party voters or abstainers cannot make any difference, and are therefore irrelevant. But if 3rd party voters or abstainers can make a difference, then the "swath" to which you are referring obviously cannot be "overwhelming". Words have meanings. You don't get to have it both ways.

You make valid points, but I think what it boils down to, is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" sort of discussion. The university system's economics departments, both globally and here in the US, have almost universally been taken over by tenured Marxists. So the BAs and MBAs they graduate almost universally are Marxists as well. Fuck, even the military academies have fallen to this. Car companies long ago ceased to be run by hard bitten cigar chomping executives that knew and drove cars and understood what people wanted. They are almost universally run by boards and VPs comprised of these same recently graduated woke Marxists, who hate the idea of cars and are only interested in how many queeers and coloreds are employed by the company.

Didn't we get teased with this crackpipe dream back before any of us knew who Pence was? Like, before their combined age at the time of the inauguration would have been less than 167?

To denegrate the memory of the late, great Jackie Gleason like this is a crime against humanity.

You're kidding, right? If we allow a digital currency that they are planning, it's all over.

They should weave each other alone.

He's cuter when he and his butt buddies are dressed up as dominatrix dogs.

For the record, this was an aside. However, you're gonna have to do better than an Obama WH website citation to prove to me that a president cannot de facto declassify records a la carte, which frankly makes sense in your convoluted statist paradigm. Why couldn't/shouldn't a president have final authority to de/classify state secrets? One could conceive of myriad situations in which it makes sense for a head of state to declassify state secrets...

And digital is FAR easier to capture remotely. You're not making a case.

And yet we again return to the unanswered question as to what differentiates HRC's crimes from DJT's. Thank you for citing chapter and verse, reverend. You still haven't answered the actual question, however.

You are at your comedic best this evening.

It would be an easier argument to make if the U.S. government hadn't funded the research. Of course, we could save a few for them...

The Future w/ Michael Malice - Part Of The Problem 894 On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Michael discuss their concerns for the future, from the dramatic raid on Donald Trump's home, to the impact it will have on the upcoming election. We also hear about the Media backlash to the trumpianisim that is surging in American politics. This Episode Was Recorded On 8.15.22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shrLq3GwljI

The Future w/ Michael Malice - Part Of The Problem 894 On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Michael discuss their concerns for the future, from the dramatic raid on Donald Trump's home, to the impact it will have on the upcoming election. We also hear about the Media backlash to the trumpianisim that is surging in American politics. This Episode Was Recorded On 8.15.22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shrLq3GwljI

Yup, no doubt about it. What do we spend all those trillions on "defense" for, if not that? A foreign government, in collusion with traitors within our own government, developed a gain of function bio-weapon, in violation of agreed research protocols, funding restrictions and international agreements. They then released that bioweapon on an unsuspecting world, lied about it's source, scope and origins, and killed, imprisoned or "disappeared" whistle-blowers on the inside that tried to expose this information. This weaponized virus went on to kill tens of millions worldwide and millions of of our fellow United States citizens, who have a constitutional right to be protected from foreign attacks and invasion. If that is not justification to release every weapon in our arsenal at the goddamned Chinese communists and these spawn of Satan himself weapons facilities, nothing is.