They are begging us to rally around Trump and not someone else

[TheTexan]

I have not proposed or recommended trying to drag people whining and moaning into liberty.

That is neither possible nor necessary. It would be a complete waste of time and effort. As I said earlier:



That goes for "dragging" as well as for "persuading" - and for the same reasons I gave before.

Most people are not ideological. They are not motivated or animated by ideological concerns, and they never will be. When it comes to tyranny vs. liberty (or any other grand ideological issue), most people are just inert ballast - they simply don't matter. Put tyranny on their plates, and they will eat it. Some (perhaps even many) may grouse and grumble and piss and moan about it - but they'll eat it. They will tolerate it (even if begrudgingly), and will contribute no significant effort to altering or abolishing it. Put liberty on their plates, and ... well ... the same. If any difference will be made, it will be made by motivated, active minorities.

IOW: Minorities lead, majorities follow. The world always has been and always will be ruled by (active) minorities, never by (passive) majorities.[1]

And its a damn good thing, too, because it means we don't need to persuade (or "drag") most people over to our side. If we did, we'd be doomed. Fortunately, we don't need most people - we just need enough people (however many that may be - and it need not necessarily be even a plurality, let alone a majority). Unfortunately, the same thing goes for the enemies of liberty - and as of the moment, their relative minority is more active and potent than ours (though that might be changing, as reaction mounts to their increasingly overweening bull$#@!).



[1] It may occur that a ruling or influential minority happens to implement and enforce policies that the majority (i.e., "most people") find agreeable - but such approval by the majority is incidental. Such policies are never implemented because they have majority support, but only because the minority that actively seeks to enforce those policies desires them and is potent enough to actually implement them. (Majoritarian democracy is just a mechanism for disguising or excusing this dynamic.)

But you did say people could be dragged into liberty. Not those exact words but close enough. If you disagree with that notion you are effectively disagreeing with yourself.

Your exact words:

"but otherwise, they are inert ballast who ... more or less begrudgingly goes along"

"inert ballast" something that by definition must be dragged to its location

"Begrudgingly" - a not far off synonym of whining/moaning

Also, you didn't address my point, that there does not seem to be evidence to support your position. Instead you just repeated what you have already written.

In your eagerness to disagree with what I wrote, you wrote really nothing of value to move this conversation forward.

[69360]

Trump has had non-stop dirt dug up.

Trump was guilty of almost all of it. Only thing Ron was guilty of is trusting the wrong people.

[Occam's Banana]

But you did say people could be dragged into liberty. Not those exact words but close enough. If you disagree with that notion you are effectively disagreeing with yourself.

Your exact words:

"but otherwise, they are inert ballast who ... more or less begrudgingly goes along"

"inert ballast" something that by definition must be dragged to its location

"Begrudgingly" - a not far off synonym of whining/moaning

Also, you didn't address my point, that there does not seem to be evidence to support your position. Instead you just repeated what you have already written.

In your eagerness to disagree with what I wrote, you wrote really nothing of value to move this conversation forward.

Alright, if you're going to start doing this thing you sometimes do, where you lecture others about how they don't understand how obviously wrong they are, and play Six Degrees of Roget's Thesaurus in order to demonstrate how much better you understand what they said or meant than they do, and how worthlessly pointless it was for them to have wasted your time by even bothering to have said anything at all, then I've got better things to do.

Have a nice day.

[TheTexan]

It's not about how wrong you are - I'm open to the idea that you may be right.

But typically in a debate it's expected to at least try to address the others point.

Instead you just outright denied that you said something... that you used different words to say. Which is at first ridiculous. Then you went on a long lecture repeating basically verbatim of what you had already said previously.

I'm fine with ending this discussion here, but it fell apart because of your posting behavior, not mine.

[showpan]

Please cite anything in the 12th Amentment, the Electoral Count Act, or any other law giving Pence this authority.

So you're saying Biden had the authority to unilaterally throw out Trump electors in January 2017, thereby putting Clinton in the White House?

No, there were not dual electoral votes cast. I'm not going to waste my time educating you on the whole electoral process since you didn't bother to look for yourself and no matter what I post, you will come up with you CNN rebuttal.....lol

https://www.theepochtimes.com/electo...p_3620059.html

[TheTexan]

I see where the communication broke down OB. Based on your prior posts, it would appear that you believe drag is a synonym of persuade. Its not, and where you got that notion, I haven't the slightest clue. 2 very different words.

[Sonny Tufts]

No, there were not dual electoral votes cast. I'm not going to waste my time educating you on the whole electoral process since you didn't bother to look for yourself and no matter what I post, you will come up with you CNN rebuttal.....lol

https://www.theepochtimes.com/electo...p_3620059.html

Your pitiful response cited no authority for what you wished Pence to do. I suggest you learn some law before shooting your mouth off about something you know very little about.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Trump was guilty of almost all of it. Only thing Ron was guilty of is trusting the wrong people.

Maybe but accusations and derogatory issues didn't stumble Trump.

[Anti Globalist]

Who is "they"?

Pretty sure he's referring to the globalists. Who else could he be referring to?

[acptulsa]

Pretty sure he's referring to the globalists. Who else could he be referring to?

Nobody else, of course. He just can't tell puppets from puppeteers, so it's hard to get ideas across to him.

[Cleaner44]

You didn't get it the first time I explained it to you.

You didn't get it the second time I explained it to you.

It might be too adult a puzzle for you.

You are a poor writer.

[acptulsa]

You are a poor writer.

As if writing is making you rich.

Admittedly shilling pays better than advocating for liberty these days. But I know they aren't paying you enough to claim to be wealthy.

If you claim nobody's paying you to advocate that we settle for Trump, you're just admitting to being a fool. There are people paying for what you do.

[TheTexan]

As if writing is making you rich.

Admittedly shilling pays better than advocating for liberty these days. But I know they aren't paying you enough to claim to be wealthy.

If you claim nobody's paying you to advocate that we settle for Trump, you're just admitting to being a fool. There are people paying for what you do.

Am I eligible to receive these payments as well? I'd like to get paid

[acptulsa]

Am I eligible to receive these payments as well? I'd like to get paid

No. You're funny.

Take a look at the current crop of professional comedians today. Nobody is allowed to pay for funny atm.

[Cleaner44]

As if writing is making you rich.

Admittedly shilling pays better than advocating for liberty these days. But I know they aren't paying you enough to claim to be wealthy.

If you claim nobody's paying you to advocate that we settle for Trump, you're just admitting to being a fool. There are people paying for what you do.

Holy $#@! you really one of those morons that think Ron Paul and actor Ian McKellen are the same person, lol!

[acptulsa]

Holy $#@! you really one of those morons that think Ron Paul and actor Ian McKellen are the same person, lol!

Who's Ian McKellen? Did he do anything back before Hollyweird stopped even trying to be entertaining? Because I haven't watched much of their crap since.

Oh, and *you're. Not that you're being paid to be coherent. Or correct, either.

[ClaytonB]

Pretty sure he's referring to the globalists. Who else could he be referring to?

OK. So, I take it that the globalists getting people to rally around Trump is a setup for a 2024 takedown? Who exactly is being taken down? The globalists are secretly plotting to block a Ron DeSantis 2024? Is that the takeaway here? Since we're starting from the axiom that "they control everything" -- where "they"="the globalists" -- then how is DeSantis not just "the next Trump", that is, "the next globalist setup"?? That's the part where you guys lose me.

Let's assume everything up to this point has been a total globalist setup. They saw Trump coming decades ahead of time. They positioned all the pieces. Brzezinski/Soros/etc. are conducting a global political orchestra and every political instrument is banging on in exact synch with the conductor's wand. All the "outrage" at Trump is as manufactured and fake as Q's Hillary-prison posts. Cool. So how is DeSantis the exception to all of that??? How is DeSantis not just Lucy holding the football and you guys are Chuck lining up for the 2024 DeSantis football kick?!?

[acptulsa]

OK. So, I take it that the globalists getting people to rally around Trump is a setup for a 2024 takedown? Who exactly is being taken down?

You didn't get that from anything he said. You didn't get it from anything I said.

Where did that come from? Who said anything about a takedown? With Trump printing, and giving to Big Pharma, and conspiring with Pelosi to suspend the Constitution, and being allowed to get away with it all by people who call themselves "conservative", why would anyone need to be "taken down"?

You certainly are the one for taking weird-assed leaps of logic out of absolutely nowhere at all, then using your own imagined whatever as an excuse for putting words in other people's mouths. I really wish you'd stop, or at least stop doing it to me. Here's a tip: Any time you insert "...I take it..." into a sentence, stop your hyperactive cross examination long enough to get an answer. That way you'll know if the bridge ahead is out or not before you hit the river bank at 85.

And what did either he or I say about Desantis? Is the GOP a binary system now? Has every member of the party but those two been nullified? Or are "one" and "nil" just the maximum number of variables you can handle?

[ClaytonB]

You didn't get that from anything he said. You didn't get it from anything I said.

To be blunt, I didn't reply to you because you get emotional about anything even remotely related to Trump.

Where did that come from? Who said anything about a takedown? With Trump printing, and giving to Big Pharma, and conspiring with Pelosi to suspend the Constitution, and being allowed to get away with it all by people who call themselves "conservative", why would anyone need to be "taken down"?

OK, so Trump was the takedown then? The MAGA movement is actually the globalists playing 45-zillion-D chess? Is that the assertion?

You certainly are the one for taking weird-assed leaps of logic out of absolutely nowhere at all,

That's exactly how the chess-n00b feels when the Grandmaster moves his queen up to be captured...

I really wish you'd stop, or at least stop doing it to me.

You replied to my post in this thread, not the other way around.

And what did either he or I say about Desantis? Is the GOP a binary system now? Has every member of the party but those two been nullified? Or are "one" and "nil" just the maximum number of variables you can handle?

DeSantis was mentioned by another poster in this thread, to the effect that we are being encouraged by "they" to rally around Trump instead of DeSantis, who I take it is supposed to become "our ONE LAST CHANCE for change!" in 2024.

As far as I can tell, the theory behind this thread is that the McConnellite GOP Establishment is being "undermined" by "they" ("globalists"?) and "they" want us to support Trump in order to fracture/divide the GOP vote which obviously belongs to the McConnellite Establishment, not MAGA. To be blunt, I don't even have a dog in the fight. I'm just trying to decode the hierarchy of the wolf-pack based on body-language.

As for binarism, it is not me who is binary, but the American public. And yes, it appears from nearly 200 years of partisan history in the US that the American mind can support a choice between exactly 2 but not 3 options. I have some game-theoretic speculations about why that might occur (coalition-building, wolfpack competition, etc.) So, given that the American mind can only support a strictly binary choice at any given point in an election, then the question facing any objective observer of politics is who are the two options?

It is possible that an LPMC could blaze a new trail that has never been blazed before. And I sincerely hope they do. But it has never happened yet. So I continue to observe, objectively.

[acptulsa]

To be blunt, I didn't reply to you because you get emotional about anything even remotely related to Trump.

To be blunt, he answered a question you asked me that I ignored, because the answer to your question was right there in my post. That made it such a stupid question that I thought it was rhetorical.

OK, so Trump was the takedown then? The MAGA movement is actually the globalists playing 45-zillion-D chess? Is that the assertion?

Your reading skills are uncanny. I ask you, "What takedown?" and you respond by continuing to talk about the takedown. Nobody has mentioned a takedown but you. So why don't you tell us about this takedown? Is it in the room with us now?

That's exactly how the chess-n00b feels when the Grandmaster moves his queen up to be captured...

...after he has captured that same queen, and the "master" hasn't advanced any pawns to the eighth rank.

You replied to my post in this thread, not the other way around.

You asked a silly-assed question about one of my posts without quoting it, and responded to the person who did answer it. So have fun trying to sit on your dishonest technicalities. This forum has precious few members stupid enough to fall for the notion that I'm butting into a conversation between you two.

DeSantis was mentioned by another poster in this thread, to the effect that we are being encouraged by "they" to rally around Trump instead of DeSantis, who I take it is supposed to become "our ONE LAST CHANCE for change!" in 2024.

As far as I can tell, the theory behind this thread is that the McConnellite GOP Establishment is being "undermined" by "they" ("globalists"?) and "they" want us to support Trump in order to fracture/divide the GOP vote which obviously belongs to the McConnellite Establishment, not MAGA. To be blunt, I don't even have a dog in the fight. I'm just trying to decode the hierarchy of the wolf-pack based on body-language.

This is a forum about a rugged individualist, mainly populated by rugged individualists. You're looking in the wrong place for groupthink.

And why do so very many of your posts go, "Arf ruff ruff bark arf bark ruff I don't even have a dog in the fight ruff arf bark bow wow"?

As for binarism, it is not me who is binary, but the American public. And yes, it appears from nearly 200 years of partisan history in the US that the American mind can support a choice between exactly 2 but not 3 options. I have some game-theoretic speculations about why that might occur (coalition-building, wolfpack competition, etc.) So, given that the American mind can only support a strictly binary choice at any given point in an election, then the question facing any objective observer of politics is who are the two options?

It is possible that an LPMC could blaze a new trail that has never been blazed before. And I sincerely hope they do. But it has never happened yet. So I continue to observe, objectively.

Who's talking about the general election? As I recall, the last cycle featured exactly one presidential candidate per party. The time before, they had to stick 17 or 18 candidates in the GOP primary in order to not only dilute Rand Paul's vote, but to dilute everyone's enough so the handful of celebrity-worshipping mouth breathers who were voting for Trump in the early states were enough to make him the "front-runner". Hell, the Wicked Witch of the West was one of five candidates in her race, not that the media noticed anyone else but Sanders.

And how you figure the Mises Caucus figures into Republican primaries, I'll never know. Are you even trying to say something that makes sense? Or are you just trying to create a smokescreen?

[ClaytonB]

To be blunt, he answered a question you asked me that I ignored, because the answer to your question was right there in my post. That made it such a stupid question that I thought it was rhetorical.

That's incorrect, go check the record, it's there for all to see.

1) Thread started by Snowball, "They are begging us..."
2) I replied: "Who is 'they'?"
3) AG replied with his take on who the "they" is (globalists)
4) I replied to 3
5) You replied to 4

Your reading skills are uncanny.

Indeed. Legendary even.

Nobody has mentioned a takedown but you.

Well, if "they" are not taking us down, then who cares if people rally around Trump? If it works, it works, even if it's unorthodox. So, the implication of the thread-title is that there is some danger or problem (aka a takedown, or something of that nature) in rallying around Trump, and that is why "they" are begging us to do it. It's a trap. But hey, I have legendary reading comprehension and I don't expect everybody to be able to keep up with me...

You're looking in the wrong place for groupthink.

OK, forum-cop. Pardon me for a moment while I shred this forum-citation.

[ClaytonB]

Am I eligible to receive these payments as well? I'd like to get paid

Yeah, sign me up too. If this is a paying gig, I'll take the cash. Won't hold my breath, though...

[acptulsa]

That's incorrect, go check the record, it's there for all to see.

1) Thread started by Snowball, "They are begging us..."
2) I replied: "Who is 'they'?"
3) AG replied with his take on who the "they" is (globalists)
4) I replied to 3
5) You replied to 4

You're denying that step two came immediately after a post of mine which defined "they" very clearly?

Indeed. Legendary even.

Exceeded only by your Christian modesty.

Well, if "they" are not taking us down, then who cares if people rally around Trump? If it works, it works, even if it's unorthodox. So, the implication of the thread-title is that there is some danger or problem (aka a takedown, or something of that nature) in rallying around Trump, and that is why "they" are begging us to do it. It's a trap. But hey, I have legendary reading comprehension and I don't expect everybody to be able to keep up with me...

So you blew right past the "is that what you mean?" step and right into a "only other conceivable possibly" which was anything but. Which is a thing people conversing with each other do not do. Rather, it's a thing only shills trying to deflect the conversation onto "acceptable pathways" do.

Trump is a pacifier. Unless and until they do him harm, which they do only to stir people up, Trump is a pacifier. He kept "conservatives" quiet during small business-destroying lockdowns, massive welfare, and the most egregious batch of socialization of medicine since Medicare was first created. I don't consider sticking a pacifier in someone's mouth a "takedown".

OK, forum-cop. Pardon me for a moment while I shred this forum-citation.

Doesn't change the fact that you're still looking for groupthink in the wrong place.

[ClaytonB]

You're denying that step two came immediately after a post of mine which defined "they" very clearly?

My reply was to OP, not to your post, ordering is irrelevant. I'll respond to whatever definition of "they" I am given, but I specifically avoided replying to your posts in this thread precisely because of the predictable outcome (reference all posts between us in this thread as evidence).

Rather, it's a thing only shills trying to deflect the conversation onto "acceptable pathways" do.

Whoever smelt it dealt it.

And for the record, no, I'm not a shill. I think anyone with an IQ above 37 can work that out after scrolling through a page or so of my posting history.

I have found from long experience on Internet forums that I never get along with shills. I also don't get along with you. Not sure what to make of that...

Trump is a pacifier. Unless and until they do him harm, which they do only to stir people up, Trump is a pacifier. He kept "conservatives" quiet during small business-destroying lockdowns, massive welfare, and the most egregious batch of socialization of medicine since Medicare was first created. I don't consider sticking a pacifier in someone's mouth a "takedown".

That's the standard political calculus, to be sure. Based on his actual record, I just can't make Trump fit into that standard political mold. You disagree. OK, that's your opinion. If Trump was really just a cookie-cutter globalist puppet, he would have started, extended and expanded US war overseas, along with acting as a pacifier for domestic tyranny at home. He obviously didn't expand US overseas wars. And the entire question over Trump's domestic policies is whether he really was trounced by the Deep State with non-stop Fake News propaganda, Russia Hoax investigations, etc. You can't have your cake and eat it too... either the seat of POTUS has been reduced to a mere puppet, or it hasn't. If it has, and someone seriously wanted to change that travesty, he would have to do something that looks extremely unconventional... kinda like what Trump did from 2017-2020. Am I giving him too much benefit of the doubt? Possibly. Your objections to Trump are non-negligible but I don't see them as some kind of automatic proof that Trump was really a globalist puppet all along. In time, my mind could change, but hystrionic never-Trumper rhetoric won't be what changes my mind...

[showpan]

Your pitiful response cited no authority for what you wished Pence to do. I suggest you learn some law before shooting your mouth off about something you know very little about.

I know way more than you do...lol....maybe better fact check this with your other forum....democraticunderground

Pence should not have opened any of the votes from the six states that cast dual electoral votes, and instead direct a question to the legislatures asking them to confirm which of the two slates of electors have in fact been chosen in the manner the legislature has provided for under Article II, Section 1.2 of the U.S. Constitution

LII U.S. Constitution Article II
Article II
Primary tabs
Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The Vice President should have opened all other votes from states where electors have been certified and not contested, and count accordingly.
The question would then require a response from the legislatures, which would then need to meet in an emergency electoral session.
Pence would not be exercising discretion nor establishing new precedent, simply asking for clarification from the constitutionally appointed authority in each of the six states.

So in fact YOU ARE WRONG. Under the constitution, Pence should have acted accordingly especially after witnessing all of the cheating that just went on. ALSO, states that changed their election laws mid stream without following their own laws that clearly cite the proper steps to do so should have not had their votes certified. If this question would have gone back to the courts, the courts would have had no option but to side with those contesting the certification and it's process.

[acptulsa]

[Cleaner44]

Who's Ian McKellen? Did he do anything back before Hollyweird stopped even trying to be entertaining? Because I haven't watched much of their crap since.

Oh, and *you're. Not that you're being paid to be coherent. Or correct, either.

If you could learn to communicate clearly you wouldn't need to deflect by accusing veterans of the RPFs of being paid actors.

Another thing we could do is call each other Zippy and not say anything useful.

[nobody's_hero]

OK. So, I take it that the globalists getting people to rally around Trump is a setup for a 2024 takedown? Who exactly is being taken down? The globalists are secretly plotting to block a Ron DeSantis 2024? Is that the takeaway here? Since we're starting from the axiom that "they control everything" -- where "they"="the globalists" -- then how is DeSantis not just "the next Trump", that is, "the next globalist setup"?? That's the part where you guys lose me.

Let's assume everything up to this point has been a total globalist setup. They saw Trump coming decades ahead of time. They positioned all the pieces. Brzezinski/Soros/etc. are conducting a global political orchestra and every political instrument is banging on in exact synch with the conductor's wand. All the "outrage" at Trump is as manufactured and fake as Q's Hillary-prison posts. Cool. So how is DeSantis the exception to all of that??? How is DeSantis not just Lucy holding the football and you guys are Chuck lining up for the 2024 DeSantis football kick?!?

My theory is that the globalists probably went to lunch and are just watching everyone come up with zany theories and chase our tails while laughing.

Healthy skepticism is necessary for the preservation of freedom, but sometimes I wonder if we were left to our own devices if we'd manage to defeat ourselves.

We'd be the people running around saying that Paul Revere was just controlled opposition to get everyone riled up so that King George III could have an excuse to crack down on the colonists. Thank God it was just a much simpler time back then, apparently, where some element of logic still applied to the methods of tyrants.

[ClaytonB]

My theory is that the globalists probably went to lunch and are just watching everyone come up with zany theories and chase our tails while laughing.

Healthy skepticism is necessary for the preservation of freedom, but sometimes I wonder if we were left to our own devices if we'd manage to defeat ourselves.

We'd be the people running around saying that Paul Revere was just controlled opposition to get everyone riled up so that King George III could have an excuse to crack down on the colonists. Thank God it was just a much simpler time back then, apparently, where some element of logic still applied to the methods of tyrants.

Well, yes, we are now clearly in Clown World. Anyone who doesn't see that is either (a) not seeing what I'm seeing or (b) completely incapable of rational thought. The "rules" have been thrown completely out the window. Other than looking at who confesses Jesus as Lord, I see no possible criterion for assessing who are the good guys or bad guys-- more to the point, I don't think there is any other criterion. All the indicators that people used to rely upon to assess who is on "our team" (you know, the good guys) have been obliterated. That doesn't mean there is no hope but it does mean that basically everyone is going to be forced to recalibrate their "Good Guy/Bad Guy" meters...

[PAF]

OK. So, I take it that the globalists getting people to rally around Trump is a setup for a 2024 takedown? Who exactly is being taken down? The globalists are secretly plotting to block a Ron DeSantis 2024? Is that the takeaway here? Since we're starting from the axiom that "they control everything" -- where "they"="the globalists" -- then how is DeSantis not just "the next Trump", that is, "the next globalist setup"?? That's the part where you guys lose me.

Let's assume everything up to this point has been a total globalist setup. They saw Trump coming decades ahead of time. They positioned all the pieces. Brzezinski/Soros/etc. are conducting a global political orchestra and every political instrument is banging on in exact synch with the conductor's wand. All the "outrage" at Trump is as manufactured and fake as Q's Hillary-prison posts. Cool. So how is DeSantis the exception to all of that??? How is DeSantis not just Lucy holding the football and you guys are Chuck lining up for the 2024 DeSantis football kick?!?

Ron DeSantis On The Record