Jump to content
TroyinEwa/Perv

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, chocolat steve said:

Coss, it would appear this whole Trump era and all that entails is nearing an end.

yes, I've been staying away from the fray, a little, but every now and then, Trump tickles my funny bone :)

And Cav's right outside :)

Cures for Corona Virus and anything else in the world:

A/. Cav's patent Aluminium foil, finger stalls.

B/. Cav's patent Aluminium foil, testicle wrappers, (it's advised to leave the testicles attached to the body, but if not, it's too late...).

C/. Cav's patent Aluminium foil, match protectors, protect your match, for when the shit hits the fan (WSHF) and you need to light a smoke.

 

CavsFoil.jpg.f112e19a8b457aed3965374ba717706b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cavanami said:

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and suit, text that says "WE ARE PAYING 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS MILLIONS TO DO NOTHING @DONALDTRUMP_ 2020 WE PAY THIS MAN NOTHING TO DO EVERYTHING. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP!"

I would like to see the government change where all congresspersons are paid by their own state or district. The fallacy they say is they represent the people of the United States and that is patently false. They are voted in and represent either their district (Congress) or state (Senator). Why are the tax dollars of someone in Texas who didn't vote for or agree with Pelosi, going towards her salary and benefits? 

They may be on committees that affect all Americans but they are still there for the people who voted them in. If one state wants to pay their representative a million a year so be it. Or pay them minimum wage. This should be the start.

The other fallacy is 'we are a 2 party system'. It  morphed into that but it was never, ever the intention of the founders to have political parties. They saw that it led to partisanship in the Parliament. There were already factions (north vs south at the founding) and they created the system in order to reduce it. That's why originally the person who got 2nd in votes became the VP. He acted as sort of a shadow minister. He was also representative of the minority that lost the vote. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav, you can't be for the federal militarization of cities? It's okay to disagree on a point with someone you support. I supported Obama but disagreed with him on a few things like TPP and extrajudicial drone killings of American citizens and knowingly killing family members along with suspected militants. 

I think Trump is doing it purely for political reasons to shore up his base. But the precedence of it. I fear a far left version of Trump as much as I fear Trump. If the Republicans/Conservatives thought long term, thought about it, they would voice their objection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They may be on committees that affect all Americans but they are still there for the people who voted them in. If one state wants to pay their representative a million a year so be it. Or pay them minimum wage. This should be the start.

The other fallacy is 'we are a 2 party system'. It  morphed into that but it was never, ever the intention of the founders to have political parties. They saw that it led to partisanship in the Parliament. There were already factions (north vs south at the founding) and they created the system in order to reduce it. That's why originally the person who got 2nd in votes became the VP. He acted as sort of a shadow minister. He was also representative of the minority that lost the vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support President Trump in sending the Feds to cities to protect federal property especially since certain cities have had their police stand down and de-funded to whatever degree.

Chicago, how many killed in the past few days? That is a police matter or a national guard matter not a federal matter. Maybe, just maybe, if the city government would ask for federal armed assistance and it would not violate the "comme potas" (sp?) then the feds can assist, IMO.

These are not all protesters. Mixed in are violent terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cavanami said:

I support President Trump in sending the Feds to cities to protect federal property especially since certain cities have had their police stand down and de-funded to whatever degree.

Chicago, how many killed in the past few days? That is a police matter or a national guard matter not a federal matter. Maybe, just maybe, if the city government would ask for federal armed assistance and it would not violate the "comme potas" (sp?) then the feds can assist, IMO.

These are not all protesters. Mixed in are violent terrorists.

First, Cav, you are being intellectually dishonest. You and I and every one knows there is zero proof any federal property is being threatened. C'mon, I thought you'd at least for once have an honest conversation about it. But I guess, I shouldn't have thought better.

So you disagree with traditional Republican/conservative platform of a city of state being independent? The mayor nor the governor has invited it. Doesn't matter who is there protesting, or whatever. Its a city matter first, governor matter if they ask  for it. 

So, just to be clear, you are fine with Biden justifying sending in federal law enforcement to a city of a state with a Republican mayor and governor if he feels things are out of hand? You can't have it both ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter anyway. The Republican party will be a visibly 2nd party in 5-10 years. More and more red states have turned purple or blue. I would actually rather have  2 or more parties competing for ideas but conservatives have lost that debate on their own. 

The GOP have no one to blame than their own when eventually Texas goes purple and other red states (Georgia, North Carolina, possibly Arizona) goes blue and basically we'll have Democratic presidents and Congress and the Senate possibly being the only area up for control. The Supreme Court will be left of center in 20 years. And it will be just a matter of how far left. My guess is you will have a moderate swing vote to determine if any far left legislation is decided on. 

I'd rather not see that. But, as I have said, the Republicans have proven the last 4 years they can't be trusted at all. Even less so than the Democrats and that takes some doing because the Dems as you know are fairly corrupt and inept. 

What will happen in the future? 2nd amendment will pretty much get watered down where it will difficult to get or keep a gun. Right wing groups of varied degrees of extremism will be rooted out, some branded domestic terrorists. Vigorously infiltrated and monitored. Speech will be severely limited and my guess is non PC will be labeled hate speech depending on who is offended. 

Again, the GOP had a chance to show America they are morally and ethically honest and have turned out to show they have no backbone, save a very few tepid voices. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...