Cutting contact with loved ones, I wonder which tribe does that more often....
Some ways you can show support for Trump
Posts
Total:
90
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Loving toxic people who drag you down and ruin you but are related by blood is an irrational thing to do that will keepy out perpetually unhappy until you learn to let go.
Cutting contact with loved ones, I wonder which tribe does that more often....
Let me guess, you’re no longer invited to Thanksgiving
Cutting contact with loved ones, I wonder which tribe does that more often....Let me guess, you’re no longer invited to Thanksgiving
I'm afraid you guessed wrong.
The answer to the original question is: the left tribe, obviously.
Loving toxic people who drag you down and ruin you but are related by blood is an irrational thing to do that will keepy out perpetually unhappy until you learn to let go.
This is a terrible way to get your piece of shit relatives to pay for bail money. Here I the thing about shit relatives. They will still bail you out, be there when you are your lowest and give you an occasional organ when one of yours fails. Your friends, no matterhow good they are will disappear on you. Try it. Go become a Crack addict for the next 5 years and a bum. See if it is your relatives still in your corner or those friends that were so nice.
Get your head out of your Ass RM. Your shittiest relatives are better than your best friends.
-->
@WyIted
This is a terrible way to get your piece of shit relatives to pay for bail money. Here I the thing about shit relatives. They will still bail you out, be there when you are your lowest and give you an occasional organ when one of yours fails. Your friends, no matterhow good they are will disappear on you. Try it. Go become a Crack addict for the next 5 years and a bum. See if it is your relatives still in your corner or those friends that were so nice.Get your head out of your Ass RM. Your shittiest relatives are better than your best friends.
I am not really sure how that would be a piece of shit relative as such. Though, there can be a toxic one who'd 'bail you out' the aim should 100% be self-reliance and being the apex member of your future family that you form with your new spouse.
That's the difference between being a pathetic boy, incel or not, and an actual grown man. It's not only for men, it's the difference between being a helpless girl or a fierce woman.
If your best friend wouldn't bail you out, they aren't your best friend btw but that's not for me to talk on as I understand how hard it is to find real friends in this world.
-->
@WyIted
Go become a Crack addict for the next 5 years and a bum. See if it is your relatives still in your corner or those friends that were so nice.
You assume I have the relatives I spoke about there. I didn't say that was my own situation or make this thread about me.
I also would never ever do that, I have spent too much of my life being a pathetic loser who never once touched crack and something like a bum to ever become that again actually doing crack.
I am levelling up my life, pretty much apex me soon, not rich yet though. You have to become truly strong, physically, mentally and financially before talking about how to go about life.
Your point is that someone who is crippled, whether physically, mentally/emotionally or financially is going to have to cave in to perpetual dependence on toxic familiar people, relatives or not. I agree, you're right. The aim should be to upgrade the fuck out of that crippling situation if you can.
-->
@RationalMadman
Loving toxic people who drag you down and ruin you but are related by blood is an irrational thing to do that will keepy out perpetually unhappy until you learn to let go
I can agree with that.
For me, it would have been probably much better if my parents died when I was born.
At least I could then think they were maybe nice people.
-->
@WyIted
Your friends, no matterhow good they are will disappear on you
Well, thats true.
Although friends are usually trying to mess you up too.
They encourage you to smoke and drink, to get in bad relationships, well most of the time they are just there for fun, its not any kind of strong bond.
-->
@Best.Korea
You know you really made it big in life when you never have to say "I am sorry" or "Thank You."
-->
@WyIted
Stand in a swamp and play the banjo whilst simultaneously fucking ones sister.
Or Mom.
Could even be the same person.
-->
@zedvictor4
I doubt the effectiveness of this strategy.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you are told. Its a bit like the police investigating themselves and promising you that if you had seen what they'd seen you wouldn't suspect them of corruption.
how is it like the police investigating themselves? Do you think the organizations that run and monitor the police are the ones being elected?
There are plenty of records, just none that can be used to quantify mail fraud.
so i will repeat, there is no evidence that any problem exists. You want to ban mail in voting to make it much harder for people to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
-->
@Mharman
I'm seriously questioning what you define as a cultist
When you believe in something to the degree that you will not challenge it. When you can hear and see it being the opposite of what you claim to believe or want, and then just ignore it or change what you say you want so that you don't have to question it. Trump doesn't believe in anything conservatives believe in. But his followers will not question their belief that he does, even when he tells them to their face that he doesn't.
That is a perception you have, but I don't see a whole lot of evidence for it. I'd bet that if "millions of people" were really that willing, we'd see a lot more political violence than we currently do. Nothing you could even cite includes anywhere near that large of a number.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results. That is a pretty large scale pollical violence. People died. The only reason it didn't escalate further is because trump lacked any method to actually cling to power and so he didn't call on them to do so.
but holding incorrect political beliefs and defending them does not reach the level of "cult-like behavior."
perhaps I was unclear. Their political beliefs are not cult like behavior. Their complete, unquestioning loyalty is. They pretend like they care about the constitution (I would argue they don't, but they think they do), but when shown trump quotes where he says he wanted to overturn the constitution they don't care. He is willing to destroy everything they claim to believe in, but if he is the one to do it, they would support him. That is cult like behavior.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you are told. Its a bit like the police investigating themselves and promising you that if you had seen what they'd seen you wouldn't suspect them of corruption.how is it like the police investigating themselves? Do you think the organizations that run and monitor the police are the ones being elected?
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officials.
There are plenty of records, just none that can be used to quantify mail fraud.so i will repeat, there is no evidence that any problem exists.
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it. Even if there was no evidence it would still not be a legitimate election because there exists a reasonable doubt as to whether cheating was happening.
You want to ban mail in voting to make it much harder for people to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I disagree with GP using the term "free" to mean "easy" but is certainly true that easy and secure are conflicting priorities in elections.
I don't care about easy as long as it is easy enough. It can be completely secure (via biometric blockchain voting booths) and easy enough to complete in an afternoon. Make election days national holidays. Allow four weeks of early voting. Problem solved. Anybody who has an entire day off and can't spare 20 minutes doesn't care enough about politics for their opinion to be of any worth.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results.
Potentially fraudulent election results.
That is a pretty large scale pollical violence.
Except when compared to the attack on the white house, the attempt to burn down a church which sent POTUS to a bunker, the insurrection in Seattle, the insurrection in Portland, the riots in a dozen other cities, the political assassination attempts, the cop shootings, etc.. etc...
but when shown trump quotes where he says he wanted to overturn the constitution they don't care.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.
Suspension of the constitution is not abandoning the constitution if it was violated already. Did Lincoln want to overturn the constitution because he threatened supreme court justices?
He is willing to destroy everything they claim to believe in
Pretending like it hasn't been destroyed prevents its reacquisition.
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional. Peace is gone, the only way to get (a just) peace back is to start bombing.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage. This goes without saying. Trump just stated the obvious.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officials
If this is the way you look at things, then why would you want voter laws? They are enforced by government employees. You seem to think that those employees can't be trusted, so how would laws preventing people from voting actually help with this nonexistent issue?
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it.
Ohhh I see. So there is a problem, but there is no proof that is possible to be found. So we just have to take right wing shills' word for it. That makes total sense. you are aware that this is the sort of logic cults use right? "Don't base your thinking on things that can actually be proven, only I can divine the truth!!! Only believe me!!"
Make election days national holidays. Allow four weeks of early voting. Problem solved.
i'm a little shocked, we totally agree on this. Although it would also require accepting votes from people who may struggle with ID. Poor people often don't have a driver's license and voter ID laws are meant to keep them from being able to vote.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results.Potentially fraudulent election results.
i mean, sure. In the same way that Trump is potentially a pod person sent to enslave humanity. Is it possible? we can't prove it isn't true. But both have the same amount of evidence to support them. And trying to overthrow democracy for a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence is still an insurrection. It doesn't matter if you think the election is fraudulent if there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.
Trump said he wanted to overthrow the constitution. If you actually cared about the constitution, that would bother you. Or, you're a cultist who support trump no matter what he says or does.
Suspension of the constitution is not abandoning the constitution if it was violated already.
that doesn't even make sense. Suspension of the constitution is by definition abandoning the constitution. The place to challenge election results is in a court. Trying to change the outcome by any other method is an attempt to overthrow democracy.
Pretending like it hasn't been destroyed prevents its reacquisition.
this doesn't even make sense. It is republicans that constantly try to undermine the rule of law. Trump is the worst for this. But somehow him attacking the constitution is a good. this is the exact cult thinking i am pointing out.
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional.
no, the comparison would be: there is a rumor that the london was bombed. But there isn't any evidence it happened. No dead people, no destroyed buildings. But loud, angry people tell you it happened and want to bomb berlin in revenge.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage.
you realize that trump is the one violating the social contract right? The right loves to play victim, but it is usually the right trying to undermine democracy with their gerrymandering, voter suppression etc. The stuff that you see as the democrats violating the social contract usually isn't even real.
-->
@HistoryBuff
so i will repeat, there is no evidence that any problem exists. You want to ban mail in voting to make it much harder for people to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Why do you think people fall for this? Or did you fall for this?
Left- makes it literally impossible to detect fraud
Also left- since no fraud is detected it definitely doesn't happen.
Nobody falls for that shit.
-->
@WyIted
Why do you think people fall for this? Or did you fall for this?Left- makes it literally impossible to detect fraud
this is the sign of someone who has no intention of actually engaging with a topic. You just say "i'm right because there is no evidence". It's what religions do.
Nobody falls for that shit.
clearly you have fallen for alot of shit. You choose to believe a problem exists. The fact that there is no evidence that the problem exists, you choose to interpret as evidence the problem exists. This is the hole of flawed, circular logic that conspiracy theory lunatics fall down. I hope you climb out some day.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officialsIf this is the way you look at things, then why would you want voter laws? They are enforced by government employees.
Same reason I want laws against theft and murder? Just because corruption is possible doesn't mean we don't need the laws. What it means is that we need more laws requiring transparency and anything else that fights corruption without significantly compromising functionality.
You seem to think that those employees can't be trusted,
An old strategy for preventing corruption is an adversarial system, in this context especially adversarial double blind confirmation. Open audits. Random audits. Chain of custody paper trails. Free observation.
Almost all of those strategies are already election laws or election regulations. They were simply ignored or nullified by pseudo-courts to GET TRUMP in 2020.
Those were the safeguards that were subverted before and during 2020 with no apparent remedy or consequence, but we can do better than that with technology. Specifically biometric blockchains allow for a system nearly impossible to cheat in and with automatic constant and effective auditing. No trusting election officials with everything to lose by admitting they signed off on potentially fraudulent results required.
so how would laws preventing people from voting actually help with this nonexistent issue?
"laws preventing people from voting" is a strawman and I will ignore it. If a right delayed through an inconvenience is a right removed then every state in the union is currently violating the 2nd amendment (with background checks). If that's your true belief we can debate that, but I doubt it is and I won't entertain the notion that you believe that until you admit that every background check and red flag law is unconstitutional.
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it.Ohhh I see. So there is a problem, but there is no proof that is possible to be found.
The problem is that there is no proof of accuracy to be found. There is overwhelming evidence of that problem.
That makes total sense. you are aware that this is the sort of logic cults use right?
Also apparently banks, corporations, insurance companies, post offices, delivery companies, schools, colleges, daycares, hospitals, clinics, car dealers (the list goes on).
Don't base your thinking on things that can actually be proven
Said the ostrich in the sand, desperately defending keeping his head in the sand because there is nothing to see (nobody can prove you would see anything if you opened your eyes). I mean there are noises coming from up there, but that doesn't prove anything!
But both have the same amount of evidence to support them.
This is not true.
It doesn't matter if you think the election is fraudulent if there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
It's not really an election if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the numbers reflect the will of the people. If it's not a real election it's not a real democracy.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.Trump said he wanted to overthrow the constitution.
He did not.
If you actually cared about the constitution, that would bother you.
I care about justice and justice means respecting liberty. When the constitution fails to achieve greater liberty than alternatives I would discard it in an instant. That is not this scenario. Instead there are people (enemies of liberty) subverting and ignoring the constitution to gain power and increase injustice. They violate the social contract and yet expect to be treated as valid authorities under that contract. This claim I can discard without discarding the constitution.
I would not have used Trump's words, I would have used stronger words for the same practical outcome: They are not duly elected leaders, they have no legitimate authority, no one owes any obedience to them or their laws or orders under the constitution even if they considered the constitution morally binding at one point.
Not my president, not my congress, not my senate, not my supreme court, not my DOJ, not my CIA.
Whatever Donald Trump threatens to trample it's nothing that wasn't in the gutter already. He may go full Napoleon and leave it in the gutter or he might start the slow process of picking it up and cleaning it off. Regardless there is nothing to lose. In fact if he did destroy the deep state and crown himself king it would be a lot easier to take him and his heirs out than all those nameless spooks who skulk around DC.
Then we could have a renaissance and some good might come of that. At least the world would be safe from the digital fascist state that is currently being constructed.
Or, you're a cultist who support trump no matter what he says or does.
You're a cultist who will claim that no matter what I say or do.
Suspension of the constitution is by definition abandoning the constitution.
If you're being beaten up and you punch back you have not abandoned peace, you've merely suspended it until people stop beating you up.
If you have a contract with a company to deliver you electricity and they stop sending electricity, and you stop paying, that doesn't mean you abandoned the contract. The contract is null and void but you may choose to resume it once the original breach is corrected. You suspend payments because they suspended their duties.
The place to challenge election results is in a court.
That's not what the constitution says, and it's not what the courts were willing to do. The vast majority proceeded upon absurd premises and loopholes which taken as a whole implied the following:
If you sue before an election there is no injury go to jail do not collect $200.
If you sue after an election laches (you waited too long) go to jail, do not collect $200.
If you're a citizen you have no standing to sue.
If you're a candidate you have no standing to sue.
If you're a party you have no standing to sue.
If you're a state you have no standing to sue.
If you can't prove election fraud sufficient to change the results your claims are without merit (this is the false burden of proof you imply as well)
If you are complaining about violation election laws you have no standing
In summary judges are cowards, they didn't want to deal with it; precedent is now set: Courts are not where violation of election laws & constitutional provisions relating to elections are enforced.
If it's not at the congressional counting, then it's nowhere, and if it's nowhere violence is the last and morally sound recourse.
Trying to change the outcome by any other method is an attempt to overthrow democracy.
Democracy isn't defined as blind obedience to anything, not courts, not bureaucrats, not so called congresses, so called kings, so called senates, or so called journalists.
It is republicans that constantly try to undermine the rule of law.
and yet there is never any precedent for the legal attacks the left-tribe keeps using. Who is really changing the rules of the game?
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional.no, the comparison would be: there is a rumor that the london was bombed. But there isn't any evidence it happened.
Wrong, the violations of the constitution are not rumors they are objectively observable.
Now the same analogy for election fraud specifically (as opposed to the unconstitutional violation of election law) would be: There is a rumor the nazis are killing all the jews, and they won't tell you where the jews are going or let you talk to them. That's not good enough. You can't just cart off millions of people without explanation and you can't just claim any operation is an election if there are openings for significant undetected and unauditable fraud.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage.you realize that trump is the one violating the social contract right?
No.
it is usually the right trying to undermine democracy with their gerrymandering, voter suppression etc
The fact that you think gerrymandering is isolated to one side proves you are clueless.
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is the sign of someone who has no intention of actually engaging with a topic. You just say "i'm right because there is no evidence". It's what religions do.
You ignored my statement.
Your claim is this
Claim: there is not fraud or significant fraud because there is no evidence.
I challenged this by pointing out that it is literally impossible to know if fraud exists because the systems anonymous nature.
DoL showed you a poll where 29% of voters admit to some form of voter fraud in anonymous surveys.
We also have a study conducted where people actually tested the system by placing fraudulent votes to see if it was preventable or detectable. They voted none of the above for obvious reasons but they succeeded in every single attempt to Cas a fraudulent vote and later were threatened to be locked up for even conducting the study.
So even testing for the vulnerability of the voting system can land you in prison.
Let's say the above 2 exa.ples did not exist. It is still a stupid conclusion for you to ssume zero fraud or very little fraud takes place. What should be scary is we have zero ideal of how much fraud is taking place and bipartisan solutions like using the block chain to make it impossible for voter fraud have been rejected because one side knows for a fact they benefit more by cheating. It's not the voters who go to church every week and who are paranoid that even a wrong thought can send them to hell that are prone to lying.
Your entire case that no fraud is happening rests on the fact that it is literally impossible to detect fraud in the system.
It's like throwing $100 out the window and not looking at what happened but assuming most people are good by nature so there I no way it is stolen. Even if you walk out and the 100 is gone you just assume the wind took it.
No honest person wants to keep it literally impossible to detect abd rectify fraud.
Here is the worst part though. These are just common sense solutions to making sure that elections are secure. He'll even democrats in 2016 said that the Russians stole the election. So they admit there may be some security issues.
Here is the thing while you are sitting here talking about protecting the ability to commit election fraud, in your pu y little brain when you hear trump say the election was stolen, you legitimately think he is talking about fraudulent votes don't you?
there are millions of people out there would kill and donald trump.
Fixed lol
-->
@ILikePie5
lol
-->
@Mharman
Your argument is basically that Trump supporters are cultists because they are wrong on a bunch of things. I could collect the same amount of things I believe to be ridiculous defenses of prominent Democrats and leftist ideals, but that doesn't suddenly make the people who believe those things "cultists." To understate: A real cult has a bit more going on than just incorrect beliefs.
When a party's support for a presidential candidate dramatically increases because that candidate was indicted on 91 felony counts... It's probably a cult.
The argument that MAGA is a cult is not about differences in political beliefs, it's the fact that MAGA is at it's core not about politics, it's about one man
In 2020 the republican party didn't even put forward a political platform, they literally just pledged to support whatever Trump says.
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are two of the most conserve republicans in the house and voted with Trump over 90% of the time, but they said Trump was responsible for January 6th so they were thrown out of the party along with dozens of others all because they spoke out against Trump.
Trump is right now trying to get his daughter in law to co-chair the RNC and has publicly said she would have the RNC pay his legal bills. No push back from any prominent republicans (who want to win reelection anyway).
Trump just days ago said he would encourage Russia to attack our NATO allies if they didn't "pay up" (he clearly doesn't even know how NATO works). Years ago this would have ended the political career of anyone dumb enough to say this. With Trump, no one says anything because they're afraid of crossing him.
These are just some examples of what cult looks like, and you will find no equivalent to it on the left.
-->
@Double_R
When a party's support for a presidential candidate dramatically increases because that candidate was indicted on 91 felony counts... It's probably a cult.
Hypothetically, if Trump in 2020 asked the DOJ to assist in criminal investigations into Biden (let's for the moment forget Trump was impeached for doing that with Ukraine), would that make you dramatically support Biden less, or dramatically support Biden more?
-->
@Double_R
said he would encourage Russia to attack our NATO...
This sounds like a partisan talking point and not an actual quote. People can't take you seriously if you are going to ague in fanfiction speak.
-->
@Greyparrot
He said "I'll tell Russia to do whatever they want"
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That seems more believable.
Article 3 states that NATO member countries must make appropriate efforts to develop their individual defense capabilities. While Article 3 does not say countries must spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, member nations pledged at a 2014 summit in Wales to move toward that figure within a decade.
According to NATO's own rules https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
Seems like NATO members not fulfilling the terms of the alliance are the ones ultimately destroying their own position in NATO by not honoring the agreement. Not that having a formal agreement ever stopped USA from meddling in proxy wars with Russia with or without NATO's consent.
-->
@Double_R
Trump just days ago said he would encourage Russia to attack our NATO allies if they didn't "pay up" (he clearly doesn't even know how NATO works). Years ago this would have ended the political career of anyone dumb enough to say this. With Trump, no one says anything because they're afraid of crossing him.
See my other thread on how trump turned Russia into useful idiots. I broke this down further than I will here but he is not referring to Nato fees when he says pay up. There was a promise for each country to contribute 2% of thir GDP to heir own militaries. Trump said pay up, meaning increase GDP spending to 2%. What he did was put the fear of God into them they will be afraid of being attacked and being left without America to efend them so guess what happens. They increase military spending to 2% of GDP and then Nato is made stronger.
He is literally making moves to make NATO stronger by forcing them to contribute 2% of GDP
I hope Russia does attack them?
Why would he even hope that. First of all he is lying to put the fear of God in them. Secondly every nation seeing that would immediately comply with th 2% rule and it would strengthen Nato and be a strategic blunder for russia.
Why do democrats not support Russia making strategic errors? Are thy secretly pro kremlin?
-->
@WyIted
Right, I don't get it. How does letting NATO skate by with 1% hurt Russia in any way while threatening them to pay 2% helps Russia in any way?
And like I said before, it's not like America needs an excuse such as Russia actually attacking a NATO country for USA to wage war with Russia anyway....