Double_R

Right, thank God we no longer have to worry about classified information being conveyed over unsecure channels.

Thank God we avoided a president who would get us into unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

Thank God we avoided a president who would enact dumb policies that would unnecessarily raise the cost of goods.

So glad we avoided the embarrassment of a president who can't even stay awake.

Or a president who would dare offend half the country with their insults.

Or a president so focused on their fortunes that they don't care about the little guy.

And let's not forget the deficit, cause that of course is our top concern.

Thank you MAGA. Just imagine the horror if not for your guy...

I heard one guy being called "eye rapist" because he was staring at women. So yes, a lot of things can be rape, not just physical contact.

We don't redefine words because we heard one guy being called something.

A nonviolent rapist is someone (man or woman) who gets angry at women for choosing the bear over the strange man

Being angry at a woman for a choice she made is by no reasonable stretch of the imagination, rape.

Left wing women and left wing men argue both of these are morally equivalent.

No serious person anywhere would argue that being angry at a woman for choosing the bear is in the same ballpark as being a violent rapist.

This is cartoonish level caricaturism.

You do realize that the Constitution allows the usage of amendments to turn the country into a monarchy, right?

If a monarch was established via a constitutional amendment then that would make it's power, by definition, subservient to the constitution.

A constitutional amendment which overrides even that limitation, making the monarch more powerful than the constitution itself, is not an amendment, it's a total nullification of the constitution, making the whole concept anti American according to your working definition. So to argue that this is in any way legally valid defeats your argument at the outset because then you're arguing that the constitution is itself anti-American.

Then why did the Declaration of Independence call these rights "inalienable and endowed by to men by their creator?"

The only rights the declaration listed are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which all democrats agree with. Nothing in there about the second amendment.

In post #3 you argued that Obama saying "I will fundamentally change America," somehow = "I will change the constitution", which you claimed was red line for you.

Well I just showed you Trump advocating, in writing, in a post meant to be consumed by the entire country, for the termination of our constitution.

If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you would give that far more weight than Obama's coded language you had to translate.

But you don't. So what do you do instead? Pretend the post I provided right here in front of your face and linked you right to, which he never took down btw, doesn't exist, and then point to some other instance of him saying something else and pretend it's my responsibility to go find it so I can explain to you how it doesn't refute my original point.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy is remarkable.

It is shocking because you have no excuses for this:

1937–1939 (FDR era)

1965–1967 (LBJ era)

2009–2010 (Obama era)

The "shocking" quip was obviously a sarcastic expression of how predictable it was that you continue to defend a position with nothing but emotional narrative spinning rather than putting together facts and tying then together with logic to make an actual point.

I don't need an excuse for things that happened 40 and 20 years before I was born, first of all, so this isn't the mic drop you seem to think it is.

Regarding your clearly AI generated list from 09/10, perhaps you could start by explaining what exactly you think your list proves? I would really love to hear you connect the dots coherently as you explain your deep rational thought process. Go.

Yeah. One word response, not a single intellectual thought behind it. Shocking.

All talk

Putting a bill on the floor and voting for it isn't talk genius.

But I get it, you have a narrative to stick to...

They did do something about it genius, they wrote the bill and put it on the floor for a vote. Every democrat voted for it, every republican voted against it. Turns out democrats don't just get to pass anything they want, some things will require republican support to become law. Shocking.

I'm just noticing that states didn't do this to "get Obama"

But sure, Texas did recently change a lot of the previous districting.

The change Texas made is the very thing that started this whole episode. Trump decided that rather than figuring out how to convince the people to vote republican, he would just rewrite how voting works. Everything the democrats are doing is on response not only to that but all of the crap republicans have done to solidify their power (Merrick Garland anyone?).

If you want a very simple test then ask yourself a question... If a national anti-gerrymandering bill was put on the floor for a vote right now, which party would support it and which would shoot it down?

We don't have to speculate. Democrats have tried this already, and they're still working on it. Republicans will not support it. That answers the question.

But you're still not at the foundation. What is the point of having all this representation if they take away your liberties?

The liberties granted in the Bill of Rights are closer to the core of this country than democracy or republicanism.

If the rights in the bill of rights were the foundation of the country, even before the concept of self governance, then they would not have built in a process through the country's founding document to change them.

America wasn’t built on any single right or set of rights, it was built on the idea that the people have the authority to define what rights deserve protection in the first place.

No, Trump did not call for termination of the Constitution, not in part nor in whole. The entire commentary is clearly preceded by a conditional introduction

Oh really... Let's take a closer look at that to see if it holds up under any level of rational scrutiny. Here is the entire truth social post:

So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864

First thing to note is that this is not even a conditional statement, as in if X then throw out the constitution. He's already asserting X so he is in fact unequivocally calling for the constitution to be set to the side. That's your supposed red line with Obama, but somehow doesn't apply to Trump. Shocking.

Second, the election wasn't stolen. So at best, you can argue the man is totally delusional. Kind of odd that you are still attacking Obama while we have a delusional Commander in Cheif.

Third, this is Trump's tired old game and he does this with everything. You act like it's some kind of grammatical genius, but this is really simple; Trump has figured out that if you can just lie, you can make an excuse to take any action you want. It's really simple; "I want to do B. If A then B. [Lie about] A, therefore B". It's exactly what he's done with the DOJ, lie about democrats weaponizing it so he can excuse himself weaponizing it, and he's trying to do exactly that here.

The man doesn't care about the constitution or democracy and he never has, that's been made plainly obvious.

"I will fundamentally change America," Oba'a said in his 2008 campaign. Since the Constitution is the foundation of America, those are fighting words.

If those are fighting words, because by squinting hard enough you can kind of imagine a way to translate what he said into "I'm going to terminate parts of the constitution", I can only imagine how badly you will lose your mind to find out that Trump literally, explicitly, called for the termination of parts of the constitution.

If the founders believed it would protect the vision, then it’s not just a side issue.

That's exactly what makes it a side issue.

The word "founded" in this context has actual meaning. It comes from the word foundation, which is what sits at the very bottom and which everything else is built upon.

The foundation this country was built on is opposition to a king. Or more specifically, opposition to a populace being exploited by power which is not accountable to said populace.

The 2nd amendment was created to protect against that eventuality. Which by definition means, the 2nd amendment was built on top of this principal, which definitionally means it's not the foundation.

So no, you don't get to claim gun rights or whatever other issues you raised are the foundation of the country, that's not how English works.

One less issue you can drop from woke complaints.

Don't think I recall Biden ever saying that people like John McCain weren't war heros cause they got captured, or tell their chief of staff that soldiers who died in combat were suckers and losers.

who tried valiantly with "evidence" to impeach Trump

I would ask why the word evidence is in scare quotes but it's plainly obvious; reality is irrelevant to trumpers.

So glad we're ***this*** close to getting exactly what we had when Trump first took office in 2017. Cause you know, art of the deal.

Probably the same way that Trump mind controls people into waking up thinking about El Trumpo every day instead of the ground in front of their feet.

Never ceases to amaze me watching Trumpers pretend like there's something wrong with us lefties for talking so much about the current president of the United States while they still talk about Biden and even Hilary.

This is your self-tell, 

Your caricature was:

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

And I clearly said:

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! Gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

You really love self owning.

My caricature of you came in post 18. Your statement above came in post 20 in response to it. And you knew that because you quoted it as you responded. So to pretend like I ignored your statement just to unfairly attack you when I said it, is yet another example of your inability to keep up with the conversation you are engaged in.

With regards to the actual point you were making - that I was unfairly portraying your argument when I made that sarcastic interpretation - recall how this gas price topic started in the first place; I posted originally about the no kings protests, specifically stating why your claims about democratic projection were nonsense. You then responded to that by talking about gas prices in blue states, which had nothing to do with the conversation, to claim democrats are hypocrites for complaining about high gas prices since gas prices are higher in blue states. That's an asinine thing to suggest, especially in that context, and it absolutely implies that blue state gas prices are higher because democrats don't care about high gas prices.

it's a highly emotionally charged assumption to imply the rest of the nation just doesn't care about the environment or has little understanding of the economies of road maintenance.

The obvious tell of someone being emotionally charged is when they react to things that were never said.

Nothing about my argument suggested the "rest of the nation" doesn't care about the environment. I pointed out that blue states are generally more congested and therefore have much more reason to care about this. I also never suggested the rest of the nation doesn't understand the economics of road maintenance, just you.

Most of the wear and tear on roads is from the weather btw, as water seeping in starts the destabilization of the roads regardless of traffic. Rural areas have a far harder time securing funding for maintaining roads than urban areas.

That's why I brought up infrastructure and how paving asphalt over dirt pales in comparison to the types of projects required in urban areas.

None that you can debunk for sure.

Then go ahead and provide it. I'll wait.

More cars don't justify higher tax rates, since you get more income with more cars with the standard rates, but fraud does.

The kind of infrastructure needed in highly congested areas costs way more to build and maintain than paving ashault over dirt, so raising rates is absolutely reasonable. This is common sense.

At the same time, 2026 refining technology has evolved significantly. Modern 2026 refineries already produce cleaner base fuels through improved processes like hydrotreating and reforming, reducing sulfur and impurities without needing hyper-specific, legacy formulations. The system today is effectively a closed loop: efficient combustion inside the engine and highly effective emissions cleanup afterward.

I wonder if you think it's not obvious when you're using AI to write your arguments.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the costs vs benefits of environmental regulations given advances in technology and refining methods, what's not reasonable is to suggest there's no problem at all to solve and what's outright stupid is to use that false presumption as a basis to claim democrats are doing it because they love high gas prices. This is the problem with trying to have a conversation with you, everything to you is conspiracies and caricatures.

I also love how Blue Maga media cries about 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline (petrol) nationally when Blue Maga states rarely ever see gas priced that low, usually being a dollar or much more over the national average.

This is a really dumb talking point. Has prices are higher in "blue" states for a number of reasons, including higher gas taxes and stricter environmental regulations.

Turns out that when you have more cars on the roads, you need more money to keep them maintenanced and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

I did. It's the Kings that historically confiscated the lands of the nobles.

So no, you have no answer. Ok thanks.

Trump learned early and fast that the real kings are not on Wall Street. They are in DC and the Mayoral Mansions.

Which is yet another reason democratic priorities are categorically different from what this administration is doing. So do you have any answer to my question?

I did not vote for Trump in the 2016 primary, but easily voted for him in the pres election because I would never vote for Hilarious Balloon Girl, who never was the smartest woman in the world. After all, would a "smartest woman" ever put her opponent squarely in the center of her pres campaign?

So let me get this straight.. you're criticizing Clinton for being too anti-Trump in her campaign, while telling us all about how you voted for Trump because you found the anti-Clinton messaging convincing?

That's why I have to chuckle so hard at the Democratic Party's "No Kings" rallies, knowing full well that it's clearly a self-tell

A tell... As in clear projection... As in the Democratic party is ostensibly advocating against the very things it itself is guilty of.

The Trump administration whom the party is mobilizing against is openly and overtly using the DOJ to prosecute Trump's political opponents while Trump pardons people who violate the law in his name, openly using the FEC to punish actors and entities who criticize Trump, and is calling for republicans to "take over" federal elections.

And the equivalent on the left is... What... Raising taxes on the top 1%?

Everything the left believes in is in opposition to the core of what makes America.

What makes your conception of America based on what you value.

The founding fathers built this nation in opposition to a king. A nation where laws would be shaped by debate over fiat. Everything else are side issues, most of which were only enshrined because they believed it would protect the vision I just laid out from being thwarted.

The fact that you overlook that in order to jump straight to your pet peeve issues demonstrates exactly the phenomenon the OP is pointing to. The right wing superiority complex is remarkable. The inability to tell the difference between what you personally value and what the country is, is remarkable.

What are you talking about?

He also faces violating his own House Rules in levying articles of impeachment in the first place, but even Nancy Pelostomy, in Trump's first term, issued articles of impeachment in violation of House Rules she, herself, ratified in the 116th and 117th Congress.

Tell me again what the rule is for supreme court justices being nominated and confirmed in presidential election years?

Your attempts to frame democrats as being hypocritical and unserious on this issue are frankly, pathetic. Just days ago Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilization if they didn't meet his deadline on negotiations over a war he has repeatedly claimed we already won. If Joe Biden had ever done that you would have lost your fucking mind and been calling for his immediate removal, and you know it. So if you want to call out hypocrisy start in the mirror.

More about why your elections are not as secure as advertised?

No, tell us more about your made up fantasy claim that people are registering their pets to vote.

There are also many cases showing how weak the verification systems are when people have repeatedly been able to register their pets to vote by mail as examples of the ease of fraud and lack of secure voting systems.

Tell us more...

Yah, not a word you typed justified the blind acceptance of the 20 percent side on most 20-80 issues.

Yeah genius, because that’s neither my position nor what I was talking about.

Let's start with Voter ID since it's recent.

Then we can talk about banning fossil fuels, decriminalizing unregistered border crossings, defund the police, defund ICE, defund TSA, defund ATC, reinstating DEI based on skin color

Almost all of these positions are either right wing caricatures of the left, or positions that people only disagree with until they learn what they actually are.

Voter ID is a perfect example. Right wingers love to phrase this as "should a person need to show ID to vote" failing to take into account that the person already provided their ID when they registered. Not to mention that right wingers love to have this debate in the abstract because once we take reality into account it shows that the laws republicans are actually trying to pass would effectively disenfranchise way way more voters than it would deter from virtually non-existent voter fraud.

This is the problem with a political movement that isn't built on any coherent political philosophy or ideology. All you guys can do is caricature the other side and attack you're fantasy demons, cause you have nothing else.