Only one of these sets had their bank accoutns frozen and people defending the decision.
It was the truckers.
If you are pro vacciene mandate, how do you defend that?
Epstein vs Canadian Truckers
Posts
Total:
44
This is why people need to give the bird to banks and use crypto in their own physical cold wallets.
What happened is straight fascism and if I was a conservative and saw this happen to liberals it would wake me up to who the true bad guys are and I would immediately switch sides.
-->
@WyIted
What happened is straight fascism and if I was a conservative and saw this happen to liberals it would wake me up to who the true bad guys are and I would immediately switch sides.
On the issue, "Should Canadian truckers have their assets frozen?", I agree with the conservatives.
On the issue, "Should the constitution be terminated?", I disagree with Trump.
I'm not a partisan hack.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Should the constitution be terminated?", I disagree with Trump.
Trump isn't really a conservative but it's pretty obvious that the left is a larger threat to the bill of rights. the bill of rights being the most important part of the constitution.
I dont Trump has really stated he wants to suspend the constitution despite his hot take on some things. I guess the accusation comes down to the fact that he disagreed with a lot of people about what the constitution gave Mike Pence th authority to do. It also seems that the left has acknowledged he is correct because the changed some laws (the rhetoric thy use is strengthened" to ensure that the law is more Lear on the issue. To me that is undermi ing th constitution if constitutional scholars are in disagreement over what the VP is allowed to do and especially if the laws see altered so they are more clear on the matter.
-->
@WyIted
Do you think the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in place to make sure the government would be too scared to divide the country into diverse warring factions? (think gangs from all over the world in liberal cities)
It's little wonder the left does not honor the 2nd A.
-->
@WyIted
Trump isn't really a conservative but it's pretty obvious that the left is a larger threat to the bill of rights. the bill of rights being the most important part of the constitution.
I don't think the order of the amendments matter. But the left is more pro 8th and 13th, the right is more pro 2nd and 5th. Both support the 1st for people on their dichotimy team (left vs right).
I guess the accusation comes down to the fact that he disagreed with a lot of people about what the constitution gave Mike Pence th authority to do.
Wanting to modify the constitution is different than wanting to terminate it. Lincoln modified the constitution. He didn't terminate it.
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Maybe you guys (both of you are on the left, so I can assume you support vacciene mandates) have something to say about this.
Or do you just not want to criticize those than the corporate media told you not to criticize.
Canadian Truckers deserve better treatment than Jeffery Epstein.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hello.
I am anti Covid vaccine mandate, Pro let the suckers die or suffer long term without it. Society isn't always that psychopathic about it, unfortunately.
Cheers.
Regarding the issue at hand, are you asking me something here?
This topic seems to have nothing to do witha. COVID vaccine mandate.
-->
@RationalMadman
I am anti Covid vaccine mandate, Pro let the suckers die or suffer long term without it. Society isn't always that psychopathic about it, unfortunately.
That's fine.
Honestly, that's my take as well.
Regarding the issue at hand, are you asking me something here?This topic seems to have nothing to do witha. COVID vaccine mandate.
I was asking why were Canadian Truckers getting treated worse than JEFFERY EPSTEIN!?
-->
@WyIted
I dont Trump has really stated he wants to suspend the constitution despite his hot take on some things.
he has said on multiple occasions that he wants to suspend the constituion.
For example this is from december 2022 "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
And you think the left is the threat the constitution? lol. The right is openly saying that if the constitution gets in the way of their power that they will get rid of it.
-->
@RationalMadman
If you set the precedent that “political speech that reults in 100 people dying is just as bad as 100 murders”, then that is communist (and I fail to see how it wouldn’t be).
Speech that has 100 people or so get killed as a side effect of a policy (like advocating for legalized guns results in at least 100 children dying a year or so) should be treated much better than actually murdering 100 children.
The communist disagrees.
Speech that has 100 people or so get killed as a side effect of a policy (like advocating for legalized guns results in at least 100 children dying a year or so) should be treated much better than actually murdering 100 children.
The communist disagrees.
-->
@HistoryBuff
For example this is from december 2022 "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Did you know that the constitution allows martial law?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I was asking why were Canadian Truckers getting treated worse than JEFFERY EPSTEIN!?
So what would Oromagi or me know about it?
We don't come here representing the American and Canadian combined law enforcement forces.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you set the precedent that “political speech that reults in 100 people dying is just as bad as 100 murders”, then that is communist (and I fail to see how it wouldn’t be).
How is that Communist as supposed to Capitalist or neither/both?
Speech that has 100 people or so get killed as a side effect of a policy (like advocating for legalized guns results in at least 100 children dying a year or so) should be treated much better than actually murdering 100 children.
Well if you are so skilled and dedicated to use your influence to lead a massacre, you are long term more dangerous than the particular arrested/killed lunatic(s) that carried the most recent one out.
Just something to wrap that pretty brain around before saying things that I barely (or overall don't at all) even talk about here as if you're fighting me.
The communist disagrees.
Which one?
-->
@WyIted
Did you know that the constitution allows martial law?
so when trump says he wants to terminate all rules, even those in the constitution, your reaction is "so what?". And you actually pretend like you care about the rule of law or the constitution? Anyone who can read that comment from trump and still think they are part of the "rule of law" party is an idiot or has their head up their ass.
-->
@HistoryBuff
He doesn't. You know that, I know that. It's best to just make fun of it. He claimed that a massive election fraud would allow the government to suspend the election rules.
It's hibestly dumb to disagree that congress can't vote to cancel the results of an election due to fraud or that the courts ha e no recourse.
He doesn't mention suspending the rules. He merely stayed that should say the hypothetical example where say a hacker literally erased all votes against one side in an election that yes the government be it in the form of judges or congress can erase the results. Nobody actually thinks that is a suspension of the constitution, qnd literally nobody cried about it when AL Gore made the same argument and kept demanding recounts so he could delay the process long enough to get judges to agree to overthrow the election.
You can say that you disagree with his analysis of a lot of fraud despite you not having access to the confidential information He does. However I think uou know that in a deo.ocratic Republic the rail guard to protect us from. Fraudulent election results can not be single handedly done by the president. He needs a bunch of democrats to agree with him, many of which likely did but preferred Biden s a president or didn't think that Biden was enough of a security threat to justify undermining public faith in election integrity.
-->
@WyIted
He doesn't. You know that, I know that. It's best to just make fun of it.
What? He already tried. He was part of a scheme to send a slate of fake electors to overturn the election results. He tried to convince his VP to illegally refuse to acknowledge the results of the election to buy him more time to try to steal the election. There is no law that he would be unwilling to break to protect himself, his power and his wealth. I know that, and deep down I'm sure you know that too.
It's hibestly dumb to disagree that congress can't vote to cancel the results
why would they have that power? That doesn't even make sense. It would mean that a government could just refuse to hand over power after losing an election.
or that the courts ha e no recourse.
the courts absolutely can overturn the results of an election. And trump and his allies tried this. Every single case was a failure because there was never any evidence of voter fraud.
He doesn't mention suspending the rules.
so to you, this doesn't mean "suspending the rules"?
"allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Because that is exactly what he said. He said he can terminate all rules.
yes the government be it in the form of judges or congress can erase the results.
judge yes, congress no. And they tried to convince a judge there was fraud. But there was no evidence of fraud. Trump's own investigators told him there was no fraud at the time. And years later, there is still no evidence of fraud.
You can say that you disagree with his analysis of a lot of fraud
everyone disagrees with his analysis other than republican hacks. There is no evidence of fraud anywhere.
despite you not having access to the confidential information He does.
There were trials. If he had evidence, he would have presented it at trial. But in every single case they failed to provide a shred of actual evidence. That tells me the evidence does not exist.
Fraudulent election results can not be single handedly done by the president. He needs a bunch of democrats to agree with him, many of which likely did but preferred Biden s a president or didn't think that Biden was enough of a security threat to justify undermining public faith in election integrity.
so even though there have been countless investigations into the election and no evidence of any significant fraud has ever been found, you still cling to the belief that there was some kind of fraud but Trump is just hiding the evidence for it? That is cult level of cope.
-->
@RationalMadman
How is that Communist as supposed to Capitalist or neither/both?
The communist believes in censoring right wing speech. It's how it is different from the socialist.
Well if you are so skilled and dedicated to use your influence to lead a massacre, you are long term more dangerous than the particular arrested/killed lunatic(s) that carried the most recent one out.
Talking about murdering people is different than talking about legalzing AR 15s.
Which one?
A generic communist.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The communist believes in censoring right wing speech. It's how it is different from the socialist.
Not true, many communists in the US support the freedom of capitals it's to speak.
Also, this is pure semantics. I am sure many anarchocommunists define it the other way around too.
I didn't ask you how it's possible for a communist regime to oppress speech, I asked why capitalist or hybrid tyranny is not equally supportive of it.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Talking about murdering people is different than talking about legalzing AR 15s.
Okay...? Is this a point against me?
-->
@TheUnderdog
A generic communist is a tyrant megalomaniac?
What are you saying a generic communist disagreed with?
Oromagi and myself are both not communists and both not generic ones either.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Are you being serious first you say this in response to Trump stating the election could be overturned
why would they have that power? That doesn't even make sense. It would mean that a government could just refuse to hand over power after losing an election
Then in your very next response to me you say this
the courts absolutely can overturn the results of an election. And trump and his allies tried this. Every single case was a failure because there was never any evidence of voter fraud.
----------
What? He already tried. He was part of a scheme to send a slate of fake electors
Alternative electors and there is precedent
tried to convince his VP to illegally refuse to acknowledge the results of the election
Citation needed for the exact law that explicitly states the VP has to certify the election and no one that gives him authority to certify the election does not count.
judge yes, congress no. And they tried to convince a judge there was fraud. But there was no evidence of fraud. Trump's own investigators told him there was no fraud at the time. And years later, there is still no evidence of fraud.
Which classified document that Trump saw and you didn't see do you disagree with? Please cite the specific classified document that can't be revealed in court due to national security reasons?
Trump is just hiding the evidence for it? That is cult level of cope.
This is like stating Trump is hiding the real killer of JFK just because there're still classified documents about the JFK case. That's not how classified documentsget declassified. It isn't an ego thing there is a process.
There were trials. If he had evidence, he would have presented it at trial. But in every single case they failed to provide a shred of actual evidence. That tells me the evidence does not exist
Why re you setting yourself up to backpedal? What happens if I do show you a shred of evidence for the theory of election theft?
You know that a single strand of evidence would not convince you of election theft. I also sense you are losing g weasel terms and would back pedal with proof of election theft by just saying you define theft differently.
Let's see though. Let me present a single strand of evidence and see if a strand of evidence is enough or if you were being dishonest
The strand of evidence
Now is a single strand of evidence en9ugh to change your mind or is your criticims of zero strands of evidence pointless?
-->
@WyIted
Are you being serious first you say this in response to Trump stating the election could be overturned
no i said that in response to you saying that trump or congress can overturn election results. They cannot. And for very good reasons. If they could, a president or congress could just invalidate an election they lost and cling to power. Exactly like trump tried to do. He failed because he doesn't have that power. Nor does congress.
Citation needed for the exact law that explicitly states the VP has to certify the election and no one that gives him authority to certify the election does not count.
the VP's role is mostly ceremonial. It's just to make sure they counted right. He does not have the power to deny the results of an election. The idea that he has that power doesn't even make sense. It would invalidate democracy. All a losing president would have to do is just refuse to acknowledge the result and he never has to give up power. The idea that this is what the role is for is just stupid on the face of it.
Which classified document that Trump saw and you didn't see do you disagree with? Please cite the specific classified document that can't be revealed in court due to national security reasons?
you know judges can have security clearance right? If they actually had evidence they could present it in court. Also, even if they couldn't, trump didn't say he had secret evidence. He may have by now, I don't pay attention to what he says. But at the time he did not make that claim. And we have witnesses who were part of his administration who testified that they told him there was no evidence. They absolutely would have known about any "secret" evidence. Pretending like it exists is SUPER cultish.
This is like stating Trump is hiding the real killer of JFK just because there're still classified documents about the JFK case. That's not how classified documentsget declassified. It isn't an ego thing there is a process.
of course there is a process. Do you know what it is? The president fills out a form. That's it. Trump had the power to declassify almost literally anything he wanted. All it took was a tiny amount of paperwork and he had people to fill it out for him. The only thing the president can't declassify on a whim is nuclear secrets. So if he had secret evidence, he could have declassified it and presented it within hours, a day or 2 at most.
Why re you setting yourself up to backpedal? What happens if I do show you a shred of evidence for the theory of election theft?
to be fair, I didn;t challenge you to show me a shred. I said a shred does not exist or has never been shown. Maybe you could come up with some random fact or event that when looked at from a certain perspective could constitute a "shred". For example, Trump said he had a "shred" when he showed a video of a woman handing her daughter an object. He and his lawyer claimed it was a flash drive with fraudulent votes. It turned out to be gum.
Now is a single strand of evidence en9ugh to change your mind or is your criticims of zero strands of evidence pointless?
where in this thing is the evidence. I'm skimming through an I'm not seeing it. So please point to it exactly.
Here is a quote that kind of makes this article sound ridiculous for what you are going for.
"an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."
Nothing in the constitution says "This is mostly ceremonial"the VP's role is mostly ceremonial.
-->
@HistoryBuff
the VP's role is mostly ceremonial. It's just to make sure they counted right. He does not have the power to deny the results of an election.
So what law forces him to even show up to the event. You said Donald Trump broke the law by sking hin to abstain, so if it is just ceremonial why do you think it's an act of treason to abstain from the event? What part of the law explicitly states it is ceremonial?
-->
@WyIted
So what law forces him to even show up to the event.
the 12th amendment of the constitution.
You said Donald Trump broke the law by sking hin to abstain, so if it is just ceremonial why do you think it's an act of treason to abstain from the event?
because while the role is ceremonial, it is required by the constitution. Asking the VP to not carry out his constitution responsibility is illegal. Doing it to try to overturn the election results is an attempted insurrection.
What part of the law explicitly states it is ceremonial?
the 12th amendment to the constitution. His role is to "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." His job is to open the votes and make sure they were counted. That's it. He has no authority to make decisions on the votes. He has no authority to refuse to count them to help subvert democracy.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Wrong. Here is the actual wording
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, 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. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.–]The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
-->
@WyIted
Wrong. Here is the actual wording
ok. So the wording I provided was "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."
and the wording in what you pasted was "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted"
Where exactly was I wrong? cause it's word for word what I said it was.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Look at the sentence before that. What do you think the word Shall means?
-->
@WyIted
Look at the sentence before that. What do you think the word Shall means?
It means exactly what I have been telling you it means. It means he is required by law to open the votes and count them. Nothing more, nothing less. To refuse to do so is illegal. To refuse to show up is illegal.