destruction of america

[john510]

28 minutes ago, tr8er said:

You mean where she reiterated her statements on not banning fracking and that she is a gun owner who is not going to take away our guns?  You want them to fact check her on what she is going to do despite her committing to the opposite?  

 

I thought they should fact check Harris as well. 

"And for the listeners our there, we would like to confirm that President Trump did in fact negotiate the release of 5000 prisoners with no disclosed conditions"

"Just to confirm, President trump did contact several senators to ensure the defeat of the border bill that would have funded and expanded border patrol and reduced illegal border crossings"  

More fact checking on Harris would have been a good idea.  

Well is she against fracking or isn't she ? Wants your guns or not ? When you stand firm on those issues forever and change your tune when you're running for POTUS you don't see an issue ? That's not reiterating, that's flip flopping hoping for more votes. And if she wins you believe she'll stick with her "reiterating" ? I sure wouldn't. She'll go right back to her original thinking. She should have been fact checked on many things but that wouldn't fit into the plan last night. 

[Ooph!]

Kamala has her finger in the air to see what answer to give

 

 

2019 Answering a Dana Bash question

“There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, so yes.”

 

Asked if she would ban fracking — a position she supported in 2019 — Harris said she would not and maintained she “made that clear on the debate stage in 2020.” Not exactly. She said in the vice presidential debate that year,

“Joe Biden will not ban fracking.”

 

Kamala Harris, as a 2019 presidential primary candidate, said,

"I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons."

 

Photo is real not photo shopped

 

Edited September 11 by Ooph!

[tr8er]

4 minutes ago, john510 said:

Well is she against fracking or isn't she ? Wants your guns or not ? When you stand firm on those issues forever and change your tune when you're running for POTUS you don't see an issue ? That's not reiterating, that's flip flopping hoping for more votes. And if she wins you believe she'll stick with her "reiterating" ? I sure wouldn't. She'll go right back to her original thinking. She should have been fact checked on many things but that wouldn't fit into the plan last night. 

I heard Trump tell America that Harris was going to take away our guns.  She simply defended her position that she’s not taking away our guns and added that she was a gun owner.  Both candidates support some level of gun legislation.  Harris hasn’t passed any and Trump has.  
 

then with fracking she clearly dodges pre 2020 comments.  I assume she said she was against it prior to that.  But she’s a calculated prosecutor.  She was careful to not lie.  

[Ooph!]

Source for the Fracking fact check

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/factchecking-harris-cnn-interview/

[tr8er]

21 minutes ago, Ooph! said:

Source for the Fracking fact check

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/factchecking-harris-cnn-interview/

Okay.   Her lie is that she stated that she made herself clear in 2020.  And she didn’t.  It was vague.  She didn’t lie about policy, position, or action.  
 

But she then clearly answered her position, actions and policy decisions.  My take is she probably doesn’t like fracking but understands it is in our best national interest to continue.  

[Ooph!]

I really need to find a shake my head disapproving emoji

[john510]

1 hour ago, tr8er said:

I heard Trump tell America that Harris was going to take away our guns.  She simply defended her position that she’s not taking away our guns and added that she was a gun owner.  Both candidates support some level of gun legislation.  Harris hasn’t passed any and Trump has.  
 

then with fracking she clearly dodges pre 2020 comments.  I assume she said she was against it prior to that.  But she’s a calculated prosecutor.  She was careful to not lie.  

Go back to 2019-20 for comments she's made regarding guns. Go back farther to when she was a California DA. More flip flop for votes crap. I could give a shit if she owns a gun or not. That has nothing to do with anything. She would love to restrict/ban/take away, buy back etc. guns. But not until she's elected of course. 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

[tr8er]

So how would a president pass legislation that would amend the constitution?  They would need to amend the constitution with 2/3 support of both chambers.  This has almost never succeeded with other changes.  Guns mandatory buy back legislation even less likely.  Then court challenges that are almost guaranteed to be supported by the current SCOTUS.  
 

I just looked it up.  Less than 30 out of 10,000 amendments have been ratified over the history.  
 

I’m a big supporter of gun rights which I’m keenly aware won’t fit your view of me.  But I’m glad my neighbors can’t own grenades or machine guns.  I just fundamentally agree that we are not better off without guns as a whole.  And with the Supreme Court we currently employ, that isn’t going to budge.  

[IZRL]

3 hours ago, tr8er said:

Okay.   Her lie is that she stated that she made herself clear in 2020.  And she didn’t.  It was vague.  She didn’t lie about policy, position, or action.  
 

But she then clearly answered her position, actions and policy decisions.  My take is she probably doesn’t like fracking but understands it is in our best national interest to continue.  

 

"But she then clearly answered her position, actions and policy decisions."  ⬅️ Ha, what a joke!! Who gives a damn what she "said". It's just hot air coming out of her cock holster. 

 

Actions speak louder than words. She's been in the white house for almost 4 years. She is still there. We've seen what this admin believes in, what they've done, and what they're still trying to accomplish.

 

They are FOR ;  mutilation and perversion of children, DEI, censorship (ending freedom of speech), attacks on Christians/Christianity(freedom of religion), weaponization of DOJ, division through race & gender, Racism, unnecessary endless wars, defunding police, chaos through making previously illegal crimes now legal, socialism, terrorism, making parents criminals if they don't affirm gender, taking kids away from their parents for same trans ideology, controlling and using social media against us, forced an experimental vaccine on us and fired those who didn't comply, opened borders to terrorist, sex/drug traffickers, and all other forms of criminals, made it ok for men to parade naked in women's spaces and around children, allowed male rapist prisoners to be put in women's facilities if they said they were women (women were raped), Palestine protest where jews were being attacked, making being proud to be an American racist, replacing the American flag with gay flag in schools, allowing cities to burn to the ground because of their leniency towards criminals, drugs, and refusing to clean things up, and making it nearly impossible for families to afford to eat or to have a roof over their heads.

 

These aren't things we "think" the left will do. They already did these things.

 

Libtards might fall for the bullshit that Kamala is spewing out her ass. But the rest of us, conservatives, many independents, and some old school dems, aren't falling for that shit. 

 

Edited September 12 by IZRL

[john510]

I'm confused as to why anybody would think or believe Harris is going to do anything different than what she's been doing her whole political career. She's a radical Democrat and it's obvious. She's going to fill us full of shit like most people trying to get elected do and then revert back to her radical ways and agendas if she wins. 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

[tr8er]

1 hour ago, john510 said:

I'm confused as to why anybody would think or believe Harris is going to do anything different than what she's been doing her whole political career. She's a radical Democrat and it's obvious. She's going to fill us full of shit like most people trying to get elected do and then revert back to her radical ways and agendas if she wins. 

So you say she is a radical Democrat, as Breitbart et al would have you think.  I honestly see her middle of the road on most things.  And that is not based on what she says, it is based on her history of support, and votes in senate through the white house.  I'm not even a Harris nut.  When Biden was obviously done, all I said was I hope they don't try to run Harris.  And that unfortunately is based on the notion that I didn't think a female would have all of the support she should.  And internationally I question her ability to diplomatically approach leaders of nations who will struggle to do business with a woman.  A reality I'm happy to challenge, but this seemed like the wrong year to be playing with these issues.  I still feel that way ultimately.  But if being taken serious internationally is my concern, Trump is decidedly the worst choice.   
 

clarification:  not middle of the road politically.  I mean middle of the Democratic side.  

Edited September 12 by tr8er

[john510]

It's literally unbelievable. My only exposure to Breitbart was the fact checking thing I read a couple hours ago and you assume it's "having me think" ? Tell me what middle of the road politician starts a go fund me site to help get Antifa and BLM rioters that were arrested for committing crimes bailed out of jail ? Who in the hell does that ? Obviously you don't know shit about Harris and her history in California. I'm thinking you don't even know what she's done as VP. She's filled you full of shit that's for sure.

[tr8er]

3 minutes ago, john510 said:

It's literally unbelievable. My only exposure to Breitbart was the fact checking thing I read a couple hours ago and you assume it's "having me think" ? Tell me what middle of the road politician starts a go fund me site to help get Antifa and BLM rioters that were arrested for committing crimes bailed out of jail ? Who in the hell does that ? Obviously you don't know shit about Harris and her history in California. I'm thinking you don't even know what she's done as VP. She's filled you full of shit that's for sure.

Sorry.  I clarified above.  I meant middle of democrats, and was unclear the first time.  She’s no centrist.  
 

Trump is talking about pardoning all J6 convicts.  If lawlessness bothers you.  Did she pardon anyone from those riots?  I understood that she helped promote a fund to help with legal defense and parole?  But I’m not certain that there wasn’t more.  If that’s it, then all she did was support their constitutional rights.  
 

and I don’t think you read Breitbart.  You seem fairly well grounded and willing to think.  Valued positions etc.  that’s why I engage.  I used Breitbart as the extreme of rags painting a picture of every liberal threat as a communist Satan spawn.  If they are Democrat, and stand any chance of winning, they are immediately the most liberal worst and evil socialist communist evil that has ever been.  It’s drama.  
 

I think I’d go for Romney at this point.  He’d beat Trump I bet if you put each against Harris individually.  

[john510]

23 minutes ago, tr8er said:

Sorry.  I clarified above.  I meant middle of democrats, and was unclear the first time.  She’s no centrist.  
 

Trump is talking about pardoning all J6 convicts.  If lawlessness bothers you.  Did she pardon anyone from those riots?  I understood that she helped promote a fund to help with legal defense and parole?  But I’m not certain that there wasn’t more.  If that’s it, then all she did was support their constitutional rights.  
 

and I don’t think you read Breitbart.  You seem fairly well grounded and willing to think.  Valued positions etc.  that’s why I engage.  I used Breitbart as the extreme of rags painting a picture of every liberal threat as a communist Satan spawn.  If they are Democrat, and stand any chance of winning, they are immediately the most liberal worst and evil socialist communist evil that has ever been.  It’s drama.  
 

I think I’d go for Romney at this point.  He’d beat Trump I bet if you put each against Harris individually.  

My opinion on the J6 rioters that were found guilty is some of them have served enough time. Let them out. If you just there you got prosecuted. My biggest reason for NOT supporting their long term jail time is they didn't cause but a very small fraction of the damage as all of the BLM Antifa people did all across the country. How many of them are in jail ? It's hard to pardon somebody that was never prosecuted or jailed for rioting. To me the more serious offense was ruining private property and small businesses that the average person worked hard for. Why did those two radical groups feel it was necessary to destroy things like that ? I believe the Capital had a few million in damage (exaggerated most likely) vs. billions of dollars of losses for the private citizens that got rioted on. I see Portland Oregon still hasn't recovered from that mess. They aren't even trying.And the Capital, I don't consider it some special place that's more important than anybody else's property. It's an office building where politicians get paid to argue about how to waste our money. 

[datzenmike]

There is one, and only one excuse for insurrection, and that is if you win. They should all rot in jail for life, if not hung on lamp posts. You're way too soft John. If it was Harris that incited rioters to the Capitol you'd shit your pants about it. Yeah, you would.

 

Antifa, BLM were riots against society and there are laws to cover that. Jan 6 was a riot against the very fabric of democracy, and America. Judgement should be swift and the severest.  

[Ooph!]

3 hours ago, tr8er said:

So how would a president pass legislation that would amend the constitution?  They would need to amend the constitution with 2/3 support of both chambers.  This has almost never succeeded with other changes.  Guns mandatory buy back legislation even less likely.  Then court challenges that are almost guaranteed to be supported by the current SCOTUS.  
 

I just looked it up.  Less than 30 out of 10,000 amendments have been ratified over the history.  
 

I’m a big supporter of gun rights which I’m keenly aware won’t fit your view of me.  But I’m glad my neighbors can’t own grenades or machine guns.  I just fundamentally agree that we are not better off without guns as a whole.  And with the Supreme Court we currently employ, that isn’t going to budge.  

 

The supreme court is the key, right now it is the block under the wheel.

Democrats were on mission to change it not long ago and have gone quiet on the subject, because its election time.

 

Harris ‘open’ to adding seats to Supreme Court

by Zack Budryk - 05/15/19

 

“I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court,” the 2020 presidential candidate said, according to Bloomberg.

Harris also expressed openness to limiting how many justices one president can nominate and applying term limits to justices, according to the news outlet.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/443841-harris-open-to-adding-seats-to-supreme-court/

[john510]

If the SC had six liberals and three conservatives on it there would be no problem with it according to the democrats. It's been working for quite some time. Don't try to fix it. Trump just got lucky. So did America.

[tr8er]

2 minutes ago, john510 said:

My opinion on the J6 rioters that were found guilty is some of them have served enough time. Let them out. If you just there you got prosecuted. My biggest reason for NOT supporting their long term jail time is they didn't cause but a very small fraction of the damage as all of the BLM Antifa people did all across the country. How many of them are in jail ? It's hard to pardon somebody that was never prosecuted or jailed for rioting. To me the more serious offense was ruining private property and small businesses that the average person worked hard for. Why did those two radical groups feel it was necessary to destroy things like that ? I believe the Capital had a few million in damage (exaggerated most likely) vs. billions of dollars of losses for the private citizens that got rioted on. I see Portland Oregon still hasn't recovered from that mess. They aren't even trying.And the Capital, I don't consider it some special place that's more important than anybody else's property. It's an office building where politicians get paid to argue about how to waste our money. 

I'd only want the organizers to be doing time.  I see J6 as a much bigger issue, but you are right that those who were just there, and even went in, shouldn't do time.  Those Proud boys and Oath Keepers and others who made it happen.  They are the ones I see should be made an example of.  You try to interfere with the democratic process, spend life in jail.  Others are not evil, just following the leader.  

 

BLM is a movement that grew out of protest.  I don't think there was an organizer of the riots.  So no heads to spend serious jail time.  Many, many participants who should be tried for vandalism and theft.  But that isn't jail time in most cases, and pretty difficult to pin any of it on individuals.  So how to do prosecute?  You would need video footage or reliable witness testimony to prosecute them.  Most were masked even if they were caught on camera.  Then you take them to court and prosecute them at cost to the state judicial.  If they are found guilty, its parole and a fine with damages 9 out of 10.  Small crimes, on a mass scale.  Trust me, neither party wants to encourage the government to use excessive force to stomp public protest.  They need to do what they did.  Contain, diffuse, and when they can safely do so, protect property.  If they attack a cop, throw them in jail.  There were a ton of arrests and prosecutions that resulted, but not compared to the damage done.     

[tr8er]

4 minutes ago, john510 said:

If the SC had six liberals and three conservatives on it there would be no problem with it according to the democrats. It's been working for quite some time. Don't try to fix it. Trump just got lucky. So did America.

Lucky?  Nah.  Your guys in senate were immoral, and not in the right.  There is simply zero president for withholding nominations for a year.  Then pushing them in a month.  Supreme court should be 100% centrist.  They should all be elected primarily based on their NON partisan stance.  And I champion that opinion for both sides.  There is zero room for partisanship for the arbiters of the constitution.  The challenge of electing partisan judges to tilt the scales is at the root of the evil our nation is sick from.  I don't know how to achieve this, but we are not able to deny it has been getting worse and worse with every nomination in our lifetime.  

[paradime]

47 minutes ago, john510 said:

 Tell me what middle of the road politician starts a go fund me site to help get Antifa and BLM rioters that were arrested for committing crimes bailed out of jail ? Who in the hell does that ? 

Who in the hell does that? Trump did, backing the Patriot Freedom Fund to bail out jan 6 rioters. No, Harris didn't start The Minnesota Freedom Fund, Simon Cecil did in 2016 as a 501c3, not a go fund me site. The riots were after Floyd's death in May 2020 and she tweeted “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” 

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article249293135.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

[IZRL]

1 hour ago, tr8er said:

You seem fairly well grounded and willing to think.  Valued positions etc.  that’s why I engage.

Speaking of thinking. Do you take any of the destructive things your party did under Biden Kamala regime I listed above into consideration when you sit here trying to polish that turd?

 

I'm wondering which is the strongest force in you siding with Kamala. Is it that you are ok with and agree with all the nasty shit they did this term and would be happy with it continuing for another 4 years.  Or is it 100% your TDS talking? I think these are the only two options why someone would still be backing this admin. 

 

Edited September 12 by IZRL

[tr8er]

9 minutes ago, IZRL said:

Speaking of thinking. Do you take any of the destructive things your party did under Biden Kamala regime I listed above into consideration when you sit here trying to polish that turd?

 

I'm wondering which is the strongest force in you siding with Kamala. Is it that you are ok with and agree with all the nasty shit they did this term and would be happy with it continuing for another 4 years.  Or is it 100% your TDS talking? I think these are the only two options why someone would still be backing this admin. 

 

You said:

 

They are FOR ;  mutilation and perversion of children, DEI, censorship (ending freedom of speech), attacks on Christians/Christianity(freedom of religion), weaponization of DOJ, division through race & gender, Racism, unnecessary endless wars, defunding police, chaos through making previously illegal crimes now legal, socialism, terrorism, making parents criminals if they don't affirm gender, taking kids away from their parents for same trans ideology, controlling and using social media against us, forced an experimental vaccine on us and fired those who didn't comply, opened borders to terrorist, sex/drug traffickers, and all other forms of criminals, made it ok for men to parade naked in women's spaces and around children, allowed male rapist prisoners to be put in women's facilities if they said they were women (women were raped), Palestine protest where jews were being attacked, making being proud to be an American racist, replacing the American flag with gay flag in schools, allowing cities to burn to the ground because of their leniency towards criminals, drugs, and refusing to clean things up, and making it nearly impossible for families to afford to eat or to have a roof over their heads.

 

I thought you were trying to make a joke.  You wanted me to take you seriously?  The respectful thing is to not engage sometimes.  Literally every parse above takes an extreme right wing smear tactic, feeds it cocaine for a week, inseminates it with Bannons chum, takes the baby and raises them under the love of Marjorie Taylor Greene before they are ripe for print.  Either you just like exaggeration, and are having fun, or you are clueless.  Check yourself, I'm not into it.  

[bottomwatcher]

1 hour ago, tr8er said:

  

 

pretty difficult to pin any of it on individuals.  So how to do prosecute?  You would need video footage or reliable witness testimony to prosecute them.  Most were masked even if they were caught on camera.  Then you take them to court and prosecute them at cost to the state judicial.  If they are found guilty, its parole and a fine with damages 9 out of 10.  Small crimes, on a mass scale.  Trust me, neither party wants to encourage the government to use excessive force to stomp public protest.  They need to do what they did.  Contain, diffuse, and when they can safely do so, protect property.  If they attack a cop, throw them in jail.  There were a ton of arrests and prosecutions that resulted, but not compared to the damage done.     

This is why I have no issue with live rounds used on people actively destroying other people property. Eliminates the need for all of that stuff. Rioting would quickly fall out of fashion.