Can RFK Jr Win? With Special Guest Nicole Shanahan

[Swordsmyth]

This is the same reasoning the NRA used for 50 years WRT gun control. Our agenda isn't going to pass so don't bother.
And the second people stopped paying attention to the NRA and pushing things back, the gun argument started getting permanently won.
The only break in its stride was when Joe Biden directed his ATF to find a way to ban bump stocks without any new legislation.
Remember that? Remember when Joe Biden did that? 'Cause that was a pretty huge abuse of power.

Not trying to get something passed in Congress is entirely different from not vetoing something that already passed by a veto proof margin.
You guys are just desperate.

Trump's bumpstock ban was not the strategy I would like, but it worked, at the cost of a temporary ban on a useless gimmick he got his SCOTUS to rein in bureaucratic legislating from their desks and he took the wind out of the sails of the push for much harsheer gun control at the time.

[Swordsmyth]

I've only voted for president twice as a multi-issue voter, both times for Ron Paul.
Every other time it was a single issue that got my vote. TBH I haven't voted for president since 2012 because I haven't had a multi-issue candidate to vote for and the single issue I used to vote on was guns, and we're winning that irrespective who is in the white house.

If there was an End-the-fed candidate, or an Abolish-public-schools candidate, or a Milei-style Destroy-nine-federal-agencies candidate, this would be a no-brainer. But I think I've found something that rises pretty close to that level.

There is a You-don't-get-to-simply-call-him-a-conspiracy-theorist-and-shut-down-conversation candidate.

Some of us here don't remember Ron Paul standing on a stage with Ralph bloody Nader and encouraging his supporters to look into him. Ron Paul worked regularly with Kucinich. Massie just did interviews where he talks about working with AOC.
If we accept the state as how we are going to order society (and to be clear, I absolutely don't accept it as valid) then anything that gets done within that system is going to be a result of cooperating with strange bedfellows.

I decided the other day to vote for RFKjr and pretty much for the reason of stopping the coup. "Conspiracy theorist" is one of the coup's favorite and most effective weapons. And I am going to vote to try to force them to stop using it.

Working with commies always backfires, it's one of Ron's biggest weak points.
And Trump is a much preferable strange bedfellow, but once someone virtue signals about hating him it seems like it's impossible for them to admit the truth and they'd rather vote for Lenin.

[acptulsa]

Yes there is.
And repetition will not make your denial into reality.

There is no such thing. Any budget that comes out of Congress can be vetoed.

Your little dog whistle catchphrase is intended to mean that the Congress could override the veto. Well, every veto could be overridden. Every single one.

Your rush to cuck for Trump leads you to belittle the process. If the bill needs to be vetoed, veto the damned thing. Make Congress go on record and override it. Delay the process. Make them work for their bribes. Give what few journalists still exist something to report. Delay some senators' little junket to Israel. Use the bully pulpit of the presidency for something other than putting on your Mussolini face and posturing over the trivial.

Do what you were hired to do. Earn your salary. Make the bastards earn their bribes.

All you're accomplishing is confirming Trump is useless.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no such thing. Any budget that comes out of Congress can be vetoed.

Your little dog whistle catchphrase is intended to mean that the Congress could override the veto. Well, every veto could be overridden. Every single one.

Your rush to cuck for Trump leads you to belittle the process. If the bill needs to be vetoed, veto the damned thing. Make Congress go on record and override it. Delay the process. Make them work for their bribes. Give what few journalists still exist something to report. Delay some senators' little junket to Israel. Use the bully pulpit of the presidency for something other than putting on your Mussolini face and posturing over the trivial.

Do what you were hired to do. Earn your salary. Make the bastards earn their bribes.

All you're accomplishing is confirming Trump is useless.

When a bill doesn't pass with a supermajority it will not have a successful override vote.
When a bill passes with a slight supermajority it might lose a few votes and not have a successful override, UNLESS it is a uniparty priority like a budget bill, those will always successfully override.
When a bill passes with well over a supermajority it will have a successful override vote.

Those are facts.
Those facts mean that some bills are veto proof.
Vetoing veto proof bills wastes political capitol for no return.
Trump would have gotten even less of the good things done that he did if he wasted all his political capitol on virtue signalling.

[acptulsa]

Those are facts.

No, they're the odds. They're rules of thumb. They do not happen 100% of the time.

And what you call virtue signaling other people call exposing politicians for what they are to their voters. Better than relentlessly endorsing swamp rats in hopes they might do you a favor someday.

[CaptUSA]

Yes there is.
And repetition will not make your denial into reality.

Trump issued 10 vetoes himself. Only 1 was overturned. With 8 of them, the attempts to override them failed. The other 1, there was no attempt.

There is no such law, rule, or any other provision that makes ANY piece of legislation veto-proof. This is reality; not your delusion. You're the one repeating "veto-proof, veto-proof, veto-proof", but there is NO SUCH THING. It may set up an attempt to over-ride, but the vote to over-ride is almost ALWAYS different than the vote to pass the legislation in the first place.

Not trying to get something passed in Congress is entirely different from not vetoing something that already passed by a veto proof margin.
You guys are just desperate.

Face it - He had a 90% success rate when he actually manned up to use his pen. If Trump didn't veto something, it's because he didn't want to. But YOU'RE desperate to believe your fantasy.

[CCTelander]

Trump issued 10 vetoes himself. Only 1 was overturned. With 8 of them, the attempts to override them failed. The other 1, there was no attempt.

There is no such law, rule, or any other provision that makes ANY piece of legislation veto-proof. This is reality; not your delusion. You're the one repeating "veto-proof, veto-proof, veto-proof", but there is NO SUCH THING. It may set up an attempt to over-ride, but the vote to over-ride is almost ALWAYS different than the vote to pass the legislation in the first place.

If you keep posting actual facts like this you’re really gonna confuse him.

On second thought, probably not. Zealots just ignore facts and soldier on.

[acptulsa]

If you keep posting actual facts like this you’re really gonna confuse him.

On second thought, probably not. Zealots just ignore facts and soldier on.

..

[fisharmor]

Not trying to get something passed in Congress is entirely different from not vetoing something that already passed by a veto proof margin.
You guys are just desperate.

Trump's bumpstock ban was not the strategy I would like, but it worked, at the cost of a temporary ban on a useless gimmick he got his SCOTUS to rein in bureaucratic legislating from their desks and he took the wind out of the sails of the push for much harsheer gun control at the time.

Oh my goodness.... you literally believe the 5d chess thing.

[fisharmor]

Working with commies always backfires, it's one of Ron's biggest weak points.
And Trump is a much preferable strange bedfellow, but once someone virtue signals about hating him it seems like it's impossible for them to admit the truth and they'd rather vote for Lenin.

So it's OK to support an inconsistent politician who didn't do something that you think was going to fail, but it's not ok to support a consistent politician who is actually trying to do something that has even less chance of success. Am I getting this right?

Why don't you just go back to the Perot argument and admit that you are in love with the two party false dichotomy and are afraid people like me are the most legitimate threat to your god emperor because you'll have to spend 4 years hearing that he's a minority elected president.

[acptulsa]

So it's OK to support an inconsistent politician who didn't do something that you think was going to fail, but it's not ok to support a consistent politician who is actually trying to do something that has even less chance of success. Am I getting this right?

Something something Team Player rah rah.

But you knew that...

Why don't you just go back to the Perot argument and admit that you are in love with the two party false dichotomy and are afraid people like me are the most legitimate threat to your god emperor because you'll have to spend 4 years hearing that he's a minority elected president.

Losing your constitution and your country isn't losing if you're voting for the winning candidate all along.

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

The important thing isn't to avoid tyranny. The important thing is to get the flavor of tyranny that you want.

[69360]

Nope RFK can't win. Even less likely now that they excluded him from the debate.

I might vote for RFK just because he isn't Trump or Biden.

[acptulsa]

Nope RFK can't win. Even less likely now that they excluded him from the debate.

But these are extraordinary times, and extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

I might vote for RFK just because he isn't Trump or Biden.

Yeah. Like that.

Just to avoid being Homer Simpson. There are an increasing number of people out there who don't want to be Homer any more. And if a third of the voters decide that... D'oh!

[Swordsmyth]

Trump issued 10 vetoes himself. Only 1 was overturned. With 8 of them, the attempts to override them failed. The other 1, there was no attempt.

There is no such law, rule, or any other provision that makes ANY piece of legislation veto-proof. This is reality; not your delusion. You're the one repeating "veto-proof, veto-proof, veto-proof", but there is NO SUCH THING. It may set up an attempt to over-ride, but the vote to over-ride is almost ALWAYS different than the vote to pass the legislation in the first place.

Those where the overrides failed did not have the kind of overwhelming majorities that those he didn't veto had.

Face it - He had a 90% success rate when he actually manned up to use his pen. If Trump didn't veto something, it's because he didn't want to. But YOU'RE desperate to believe your fantasy.

Because he chose his battles wisely.
You don't bat .400 by swinging at every pitch.

[acptulsa]

Those where the overrides failed did not have the kind of overwhelming majorities that those he didn't veto had.

We will never know that for certain, will we? And why won't we ever know for sure? Because your theory is untested. And why is your theory untested? Because the "Alpha Male" you cuck for has no balls.

[Swordsmyth]

We will never know that for certain, will we? And why won't we ever know for sure? Because your theory is untested. And why is your theory untested? Because the "Alpha Male" you cuck for has no balls.

We have the vote records, we know how many people voted for them.

[acptulsa]

We have the vote records, we know how many people voted for them.

So? We also know that the totals almost always change for the override votes, too. Almost always, because an override gets attention from the public, and some congresspeople get cold feet at that point.

[Swordsmyth]

So? We also know that the totals almost always change for the override votes, too. Almost always, because an override gets attention from the public, and some congresspeople get cold feet at that point.

You aren't going to change it enough when the numbers are too big.
And the politicians are going to be under extra pressure in the press to pass a budget bill, the press will trot out every heartbleed thing that is being denied funding to beat everyone over the head with.

[acptulsa]

You aren't going to change it enough when the numbers are too big.
And the politicians are going to be under extra pressure in the press to pass a budget bill, the press will trot out every heartbleed thing that is being denied funding to beat everyone over the head with.

That's when it was nice to have a president with character.

Haven't had one of those in this millenia. But it's not impossible.

[acptulsa]

I'm not saying this live fire exercise might not put a fear of God in Trump for real. I'll keep an open mind. But I don't trust him to undo the coup.

It's a lot easier for groups like us to weigh in on policy during a revolution than during business as usual. So whether you like RFKJr's policies or not, if these people are who they seem to be, while he's ducking sniper fire he might be willing to bend to our will. And they certainly won't be aiming at the teleprompters.

Busting this uniparty is more important than loving Trump or getting back the election they stole. They're stealing a damned sight more than that, and Trump really did help them do it (inflation is theft).

https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status...13126318244035

Yes, Trump got nicked by a bullet, or a piece of glass, or something. Maybe he was a party to this setup, maybe not. If not, maybe it'll have an effect on him, maybe not. But he's trumped, because Kennedy lost a cousin, an uncle and his father. This uniparty must go, at all cost, even if we don't get to avenge our Trumpy Bear (who, unlike a trio of Kennedies, is no worse off than Evander Holyfield).