Ruth Bader Ginsburg died

[Parkbandit]

If the base number is wrong, all analysis from that base number will also be wrong. I give the benefit of the doubt and say it is directionally correct. There are anomalies, some might be simple mistakes and some might be criminal offenses. I trust the process enough to consider it higher than 95% accurate.

There are a couple of other points that should be considered. Mental health impacts due to job loss, social isolation, and so on. Today during a committee hearing, upticks in all categories of deaths related to our response to COVID-19 was referenced, but I did not hear any number reported. The problem is, that number will also only trend up while we screw around with this.

https://i.imgflip.com/2tuc2c.jpg

[Risen]

https://i.imgflip.com/2tuc2c.jpg


QFT.

[Solkern]

https://i.imgflip.com/2tuc2c.jpg

Hahaha that meme reminded of Putin’s presidential election and what % of votes each party got

https://i.imgur.com/zRvygS9.jpg

[Risen]

The Apple Party?

[Methais]

time4fakestanfordeducation

Graphic Design at Massachusetts College of Art and Design is a pretty far cry from 47328043 PhD's from Stanford. :lol:

[Methais]

COVID-19 had direct involvement(either major or minor) with underlying health conditions that were the main cause of death as well.
Of course we don’t shut down for the flu. We have how many years of medical research, medicine and knowledge, including a vaccine to help combat the flu? Do we have that for COVID-19?

Yet tens of thousands still die every year to it....

[Solkern]

Yet tens of thousands still die every year to it....

And 200k in 7 months from Covid, that’s a big difference. Research, medicine and a vaccine can greatly reduce the amount of deaths.

[Parkbandit]

Graphic Design at Massachusetts College of Art and Design is a pretty far cry from 47328043 PhD's from Stanford. :lol:

I would have thought time4fun would be one of the notable alumni... but she's not.

I'll see if I can get poor Marsha's name added to that Wikipedia page.

[drauz]

It actually means exactly what I thought it means.. you literally moved the goalpost. Here, let's revisit:









https://media1.giphy.com/media/WXtccLGTLB1NS/giphy.gif

Since you left it out, here is the actual quote.


Bible says eye for an eye, I don't recall a part in the bible where Jesus was encouraging women to abort their babies.

The bible doesn't have the old testament in it.

It's ok, you were wrong. Just take a deep breath, walk away from the computer, and have some water. You'll get thru this I promise. I know it doesn't seem like it now but you will. I have no doubt you'll forget all about this in a week and move on to be wrong about something else.

[Tgo01]

The bible doesn't have the old testament in it.

Yes it does. The bible contains both the New Testament and Old Testament.

[drauz]

Yes it does. The bible contains both the New Testament and Old Testament.

Eh, mine doesn't but I haven't looked at thing in 20 years. Wouldn't surprise me that the bible has heavily conflicting things in it though.

Anyways I don't really care enough about this to keep up this discussion.

[Gelston]

Eh, mine doesn't but I haven't looked at thing in 20 years. Wouldn't surprise me that the bible has heavily conflicting things in it though.

Anyways I don't really care enough about this to keep up this discussion.

Then you just have a copy of the New Testament and not the Bible. I knew this when I was like, 4.

[drauz]

Then you just have a copy of the New Testament and not the Bible. I knew this when I was like, 4.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/63e3b724aaf3f87987bbc7cef94ff69e/tenor.gif?itemid=5169901

I'm sure your priest really filled you with the holy spirit.

[Gelston]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/63e3b724aaf3f87987bbc7cef94ff69e/tenor.gif?itemid=5169901

I'm sure your priest really filled you with the holy spirit.

YOU'RE SO FUNNY HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[drauz]

YOU'RE SO FUNNY HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks guy, I really value your feedback.

[time4fun]

The timing of this gets scarier and scarier. (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biden-electoral-college-electors-plan-loyalists-swing-states-2020-9) The Trump campaign is now looking at getting Republican state legislatures to appoint Electors who will vote for him no matter how the state itself votes to completely bypass the election.

I don't know how many more flashing red lights people need, but this is not good. And that 6-3 SCOTUS majority could end up handing him a victory if he goes this route.



The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing electors who would vote for the president in the Electoral College even if he loses, according to a report by The Atlantic.
Election experts have said that moves by state legislatures to appoint their own slate of presidential electors after the fact would violate federal law.
The Trump campaign's plan would focus on swing states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, The Atlantic reported.



The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing electors who would vote for the president in the Electoral College even if he loses, The Atlantic reported.

Using a rationale of baseless claims about widespread voter fraud and other irregularities with mail ballots, President Donald Trump "would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly," The Atlantic's Barton Gellman wrote, adding that "the longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."

With the key swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin unable to legally process or count absentee ballots until Election Day, and with ongoing legal disputes over ballots received after Election Day, the Trump campaign is reportedly looking to cast doubt on the results and extend the battle to Inauguration Day.

The Trump campaign's plan would focus on pivotal swing states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Arizona and Florida also have Republican governors, while the latter states have Democratic governors.

Lawrence Tabas, the chairman of the Pennsylvania GOP, said the elector strategy was something the party could pursue.

"I just don't think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options," he told The Atlantic. "It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution."

[Gelston]

On a scale from 1 to absolutely fucking retarded, how scared are you right now?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Then you just have a copy of the New Testament and not the Bible. I knew this when I was like, 4.

Bibleburn!

[time4fun]

On a scale from 1 to absolutely fucking retarded, how scared are you right now?

You were a fool about COVID, and you're a fool about this. But not just any kind of fool- a willing one.

[RichardCranium]

On a scale from 1 to absolutely fucking retarded, how scared are you right now?

Potato.

[Gelston]

You were a fool about COVID, and you're a fool about this. But not just any kind of fool- a willing one.

Tell me where I was a fool about COVID. I took it pretty seriously the entire time. I stayed in, I kept my family in, we washed our hands every time we came back in the house, we continue to wear masks. Tell me again, where I was a fool.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Tell me where I was a fool about COVID. I took it pretty seriously the entire time. I stayed in, I kept my family in, we washed our hands every time we came back in the house, we continue to wear masks. Tell me again, where I was a fool.

You need to say that while you play Despacito in the background so it can understand you.

[Gelston]

You need to say that while you play Despacito in the background so it can understand you.

Do I have to do that dumb little head bobbing dance like Biden too?

[Tgo01]

The timing of this gets scarier and scarier. (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biden-electoral-college-electors-plan-loyalists-swing-states-2020-9) The Trump campaign is now looking at getting Republican state legislatures to appoint Electors who will vote for him no matter how the state itself votes to completely bypass the election.

I don't know how many more flashing red lights people need, but this is not good. And that 6-3 SCOTUS majority could end up handing him a victory if he goes this route.

Isn't The Atlantic the one who lied through their teeth about Trump calling dead US soldiers losers?

How many times you going to keep falling for obvious fake news?

[time4fun]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Guess wut?

He's your President.

[Fortybox]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

Now you’re just being paranoid and a giant drama queen.

Remember all your analysis in 2016 and you turned out to be completely 100% wrong? I do.

[Ashlander]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

How in the hell do you function being as scared of everything like you are? I mean if I seriously believed you about how you say everything frightens you or you're terrified of things that are happening I don't know how you even walk out of your home any given day. I guess what I'm saying is chill the fuck out Chicken Little.

[Gelston]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

OH! I get it! You are getting ready for Halloween by saying scary a lot!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

OH! I get it! You are getting ready for Halloween by saying scary a lot!

Speaking of scary...

am I the only one who is ALREADY tired of Halloween Wars on the food network? It's fucking mid-September.

[Tgo01]

Speaking of scary...

am I the only one who is ALREADY tired of Halloween Wars on the food network? It's fucking mid-September.

My local Lowe's had Halloween decorations out in August, another store had Christmas decorations out at the end of August. Soon enough I'll be buying Christmas lights in mid May.

[Gelston]

My local Lowe's had Halloween decorations out in August, another store had Christmas decorations out at the end of August. Soon enough I'll be buying Christmas lights in mid May.

We started putting up Halloween decorations on Sept 1st. Fuck yall.

[time4fun]

Tonight from Trump: "Get rid of the ballots, and you won't need a transition of power. You'll have a continuation."

[Fortybox]

Tonight from Trump: "Get rid of the ballots, and you won't need a transition of power. You'll have a continuation."

The quote, as usual from you, is taken out of context.

Dems are planning on mailing out ballots regardless if people request them. The dem candidate sucks and now the left is going to resort to cheating to steal this election.

States aren’t set up to validate the increase in ballots anyways. It’s going to be a huge disaster.

[Candor]

We started putting up Halloween decorations on Sept 1st.

Just say you'll have the Halloween decorations down by Thanksgiving and the Christmas decorations down by MLK Day.

Putting up decorations early doesn't bother me too much, but I get annoyed at folks who do things like still having their Christmas decorations up on Valentines Day.

[Parkbandit]

Eh, mine doesn't but I haven't looked at thing in 20 years. Wouldn't surprise me that the bible has heavily conflicting things in it though.

Anyways I don't really care enough about this to keep up this discussion.

The Bible has both old and new testaments to it.

And of course you don't want to keep up with this discussion. You said something incorrect.. got called out.. moved the goalpost to "BUT HE MENTIONED JESUS!" and still were wrong.

NOW you don't care...

It's ok, you were wrong. Just take a deep breath, walk away from the computer, and have some water. You'll get thru this I promise. I know it doesn't seem like it now but you will. I have no doubt you'll forget all about this in a day and move on to be wrong about something else.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

Could you be anymore scared right now?

I know... 40 or so days from now.. will be THE MOST SCARIEST MOMENT IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!

Well, except the day you dropped out of MassArt with nothing to show for your parent's money... :(

[Solkern]

Could you be anymore scared right now?

I know... 40 or so days from now.. will be THE MOST SCARIEST MOMENT IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!

Well, except the day you dropped out of MassArt with nothing to show for your parent's money... :(

Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.

[Fortybox]

Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.

Yeah, except that is not happening.

[Parkbandit]

Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.

Maybe you can hide under Andraste's bed with her. I doubt there's much room though.

[Solkern]

Yeah, except that is not happening.

Didn’t say it was, nor do I think it is happening. if it were happening, how would you feel about that?

[Gelston]

Just say you'll have the Halloween decorations down by Thanksgiving and the Christmas decorations down by MLK Day.

Putting up decorations early doesn't bother me too much, but I get annoyed at folks who do things like still having their Christmas decorations up on Valentines Day.

You don't live in my neighborhood in the first place, so it shouldn't bother you anyways.

[Solkern]

Maybe you can hide under Andraste's bed with her. I doubt there's much room though.

Gotcha, because I made a general statement that if any president who tries or looks into circumventing an election means all of a sudden I’m scared? How come I’m not surprised, that you lack comprehension or try to assume/link random shit together? Oh that’s right, it’s something that happens quite frequently with you.

[Fortybox]

Didn’t say it was, nor do I think it is happening. if it were happening, how would you feel about that?

You mean when Obama was spying on Trump? Things like that?

[Fortybox]

Maybe you can hide under Andraste's bed with her. I doubt there's much room though.

https://media.giphy.com/media/dWa5ZAAtHI48RxDpg0/giphy.gif

[Solkern]

You mean when Obama was spying on Trump? Things like that?

Not sure why Obama was brought up? How exactly did he try and circumvent the election results so he could stay in power and president? I don’t think it was a difficult question... if a president was caught trying to circumvent the election results, to stay in power, how would you feel about that?

[Parkbandit]

Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.


Didn’t say it was, nor do I think it is happening. if it were happening, how would you feel about that?


Gotcha, because I made a general statement that if any president who tries or looks into circumventing an election means all of a sudden I’m scared? How come I’m not surprised, that you lack comprehension or try to assume/link random shit together? Oh that’s right, it’s something that happens quite frequently with you.

So.. do you think it's happening or not? In the span of 5 hours you went from it's happening to it's not happening and you don't think.. to a what if it IS happening...

[Fortybox]

Not sure why Obama was brought up? How exactly did he try and circumvent the election results so he could stay in power and president? I don’t think it was a difficult question... if a president was caught trying to circumvent the election results, to stay in power, how would you feel about that?

You're purposely obtuse.

[Solkern]

So.. do you think it's happening or not? In the span of 5 hours you went from it's happening to it's not happening and you don't think.. to a what if it IS happening...

Please show me where I said it’s happening? I guess me making a general statement that means I think it’s happening?
You know if the earth stop rotating we would probably all die. I guess that means I think it’s happening? Try harder. You fail at trolling.

I specifically said i don’t think it’s happening and I asked how would you feel if it were to happen.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Parkbandit]

You're purposely obtuse.

He's just naturally stupid.

You give him far too much credit.

[Solkern]

You're purposely obtuse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)

You mean the debunked conspiracy claim? Yet you still didn’t answer my question, is it that difficult for you to answer?

[Solkern]

He's just naturally stupid.

You give him far too much credit.

Says the person who doesn’t understand the basic concept of jet lag. You should really just sit in the corner.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You're purposely obtuse.

And he's terrible at debate and making arguments. He's not even good at trolling.

[Solkern]

And he's terrible at debate and making arguments. He's not even good at trolling.

SHM, I don’t think you quite understand what exactly a debate or an argument is, since you just can’t seem to use these two words properly.

How is me asking a simple question, a debate or an argument? I expected more from you. I guess I should stop.

I mean the answer is either a, yeah it’s a problem and shouldn’t happen, or who gives a fuck.

[Parkbandit]

And he's terrible at debate and making arguments. He's not even good at trolling.

We should just make a list of all the things he's good at.

I'll start:


.





.



I'm out...

[Methais]

The timing of this gets scarier and scarier. (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biden-electoral-college-electors-plan-loyalists-swing-states-2020-9) The Trump campaign is now looking at getting Republican state legislatures to appoint Electors who will vote for him no matter how the state itself votes to completely bypass the election.

I don't know how many more flashing red lights people need, but this is not good. And that 6-3 SCOTUS majority could end up handing him a victory if he goes this route.

The irony of you, Andraste, crying about election rules when you've spent 4 years crying about how we need to use the popular vote.

You dumb fuck. You might be even worse at politics than you were as a GM. And that's really saying something.

[Parkbandit]

SHM, I don’t think you quite understand what exactly a debate or an argument is, since you just can’t seem to use these two words properly.

How is me asking a simple question, a debate or an argument? I expected more from you. I guess I should stop.

I mean the answer is either a, yeah it’s a problem and shouldn’t happen, or who gives a fuck.

lol

[Methais]

Yeah your President is currently in planning to look for ways to circumvent the election and stay in power, and you are actually sitting around shrugging your shoulders and laughing like hyenas.

Everyone who has worked closely with this man has come out sounding the alarm. Numerous whistle blowers have come out sounding the alarm. Family members have come out sounding the alarm. Woodward who has written about countless Presidents weighed in for the first time and sounded the alarm. Trump himself has been extremely upfront about undermining our election and encouraging people to engage in voter fraud. And every nonpartisan pundit out there is sounding the alarm.

The scary thing isn't that you're so incredibly broken and delusional that you've started cheering on blatant corruption and supporting authoritarianism and actual fascism.

The scary thing is how many of you there are.

What do you think about the alarm sounding about how you're really Andraste though?

[Methais]

How in the hell do you function being as scared of everything like you are? I mean if I seriously believed you about how you say everything frightens you or you're terrified of things that are happening I don't know how you even walk out of your home any given day. I guess what I'm saying is chill the fuck out Chicken Little.

Andraste has always been a huge drama queen, even when she was just a shitty GM.

[Solkern]

All these replies and not one of the republicans here have yet to answer the question.

How would you feel if any president got caught trying to circumvent the election to stay in power?
Fortybox: WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?
Parkbitch: Insults
SMH: you are a terrible debater blah blah blah.

Why so defensive ladies? Why the deflections? Why the insults? Not sure why this question is so difficult to answer.

[Fortybox]

He's just naturally stupid.

You give him far too much credit.

Yeah, you're right.

[Fortybox]

We should just make a list of all the things he's good at.

I'll start:


.





.



I'm out...

Adding some more:

1.
2.
3.
4.

K, done.

[Parkbandit]

All these replies and not one of the republicans here have yet to answer the question.

How would you feel if any president got caught tryingto circumvent the election to stay in power?
Fortybox: WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?
Parkbitch: Insults
SMH: you are a terrible debater blah blah blah.

Why so defensive ladies? Why the deflections? Why the insults? Not sure why this question is so difficult to answer.

Do you believe it's actually happening or not? Because you've waffled back and forth and back again in a 5 hour span. It's difficult to give you an answer if you don't even know what question you are asking.

Be specific.

[Solkern]

Do you believe it's actually happening or not? Because you've waffled back and forth and back again in a 5 hour span. It's difficult to give you an answer if you don't even know what question you are asking.

Be specific.

How exactly is my position or what I think relevant to the question at hand? Because it’s not. I’ve said it already I don’t think it’s happening now, or has it ever happened. Being in the news right now about it, made me ask the question.

So I’ll ask again. How would you feel if any president, either a Republican or a Democrat got caught trying to circumvent the election results to stay in power?

[Fortybox]

All these replies and not one of the republicans here have yet to answer the question.

How would you feel if any president got caught trying to circumvent the election to stay in power?
Fortybox: WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?
Parkbitch: Insults
SMH: you are a terrible debater blah blah blah.

Why so defensive ladies? Why the deflections? Why the insults? Not sure why this question is so difficult to answer.

Can we get another 20 paragraphs about why we are wrong? I feel like we need an in-depth analysis here.

[Solkern]

Can we get another 20 paragraphs about why we are wrong? I feel like we need an in-depth analysis here.

Or could you answer my question? Not sure why it’s so difficult for you. Did I use too many big words? Are you confused by it?

[Methais]

Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.

Democrats have spent 4 years trying to circumvent the 2016 election. And they're trying to circumvent this one too.

[Solkern]

Democrats have spent 4 years trying to circumvent the 2016 election. And they're trying to circumvent this one too.


That’s nice, but that doesn’t mean anything to my question? I said president and Obama nor has any president in history(I believe) ever tried to circumvent the election to stay in power as president.

But yeah I agree with you, some stupid ass democrats still can’t get over 2016.

[drauz]

Not sure why Obama was brought up? How exactly did he try and circumvent the election results so he could stay in power and president? I don’t think it was a difficult question... if a president was caught trying to circumvent the election results, to stay in power, how would you feel about that?

Its only "But...But...But" if you aren't a rabid conservative here. When they do it it's a valid and rational discussion.

[Solkern]

Its only "But...But...But" if you aren't a rabid conservative here. When they do it it's a valid and rational discussion.

When you take away one of their only two avenues of responding, they can only resort to the other one, which is insults.

If they say yes it’s a problem, and Trump actually tries to do it...
if they say no it’s not a problem and a democrat tries to do it....
That’s why they are avoiding it.

I’ve yet to see fortybox, rocktar or PB engage in any rational discussion here, it’s just insults, but but but or they stroke each other’s dicks. Those are the only three things they do here.

[drauz]

When you take away one of their only two avenues of responding, they can only resort to the other, which is insults.

If they say yes it’s a problem, and Trump actually tries to do it...
if they say no it’s not a problem and a democrat tries to do it....
That’s why they are avoiding it.

I’ve yet to see fortybox, rocktar or PB engage in any rational discussion here, it’s just insults, but but but or they stroke each other’s dicks. Those are the only two things they do here.

PB will occasionally, the other 2 are just straight up retarded.

[Parkbandit]

How exactly is my position or what I think relevant to the question at hand? Because it’s not. I’ve said it already I don’t think it’s happening now, or has it ever happened. Being in the news right now about it, made me ask the question.


So I’ll ask again. How would you feel if any president, either a Republican or a Democrat got caught trying to circumvent the election results to stay in power?


So, you are back to thinking it's not happening... but you want to play a hypothetical game of some sort.


Sorry. I don't play hypothetical games with people who have difficulty in just dealing with reality.


You should probably use your finite mental resources just concentrating with stuff that is actually happening.

[Methais]

That’s nice, but that doesn’t mean anything to my question? I said president and Obama nor has any president in history(I believe) ever tried to circumvent the election to stay in power as president.

But yeah I agree with you, some stupid ass democrats still can’t get over 2016.

Ok to answer your question, yeah it's bad for a president to do that.

Now....is this what you believe is happening at the moment?

[Fortybox]

Or could you answer my question? Not sure why it’s so difficult for you. Did I use too many big words? Are you confused by it?

How would you feel if Biden turned out to be a double agent for Russia and was exposed shortly after winning the election?

[Jeril]

When you take away one of their only two avenues of responding, they can only resort to the other, which is insults.

If they say yes it’s a problem, and Trump actually tries to do it...
if they say no it’s not a problem and a democrat tries to do it....
That’s why they are avoiding it.

I’ve yet to see fortybox, rocktar or PB engage in any rational discussion here, it’s just insults, but but but or they stroke each other’s dicks. Those are the only two things they do here.

Something doesn't quite add up.

[Parkbandit]

Something doesn't quite add up.

I love it when liberals use homosexuality as an insult... especially when gay liberals do it.

And stop picking on Solkern for his lack of remedial mathematics skill.

[Solkern]

So, you are back to thinking it's not happening... but you want to play a hypothetical game of some sort.


Sorry. I don't play hypothetical games with people who have difficulty in just dealing with reality.


You should probably use your finite mental resources just concentrating with stuff that is actually happening.



Ok to answer your question, yeah it's bad for a president to do that.

Now....is this what you believe is happening at the moment?
My original post:


Well, anytime any president is trying or looking into circumventing the election, Democrat or Republican is a cause of concern and a problem.

Not sure how you get I said it’s happening now, I never said it was, I even said any president, democrat or Republican to make it clear for you. Obviously, it was too difficult for you to comprehend that.

Page 30: My first reply after I posted original statement on it.

Didn’t say it was, nor do I think it is happening. if it were happening, how would you feel about that?

Once again trying to help you understand.


I specifically said i don’t think it’s happening and I asked how would you feel if it were to happen.


Page 32
I thought maybe the third time would be a charm, nope it wasn’t. You still didn’t understand.

I’ve said it already I don’t think it’s happening now, or has it ever happened. Being in the news right now about it, made me ask the question.


Methais I know you are just lazy, but seriously PB, you really need to work on that reading comprehension, I mean how many times do I need to say it before you understand? You put your stupidity on display every chance you get! I’m proud of your dedication! Keep it up. Here let me say it again no I do NOT believe it is happening now, or has ever happened in our history and you still haven’t answered my simple question, just carry on with the insults, and deflections, everyone knows it means you don’t have an answer.

And thanks Methais, for answering such a simple question and yeah I do agree it’s fucking bad. If any president would to do it in the future, it would set a bad precedent.

[Solkern]

Something doesn't quite add up.

Yeah cause I edited my post and forgot to change the second part. I’ll fix it now.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How would you feel if Biden turned out to be a double agent for Russia and was exposed shortly after winning the election?

I think you meant China.

[Solkern]

How would you feel if Biden turned out to be a double agent for Russia and was exposed shortly after winning the election?

That we a big god damn fucking problem and would probably end up with a war.


See? It’s not that difficult to answer a question, now why don’t you give it a try and answer mine.

[Parkbandit]

Page 30: My first reply after I posted original statement on it.

Once again trying to help you understand.

Page 32
I thought maybe the third time would be a charm, nope it wasn’t. You still didn’t understand.

Methais I know you are just lazy, but seriously PB, you really need to work on that reading comprehension, I mean how many times do I need to say it before you understand? You put your stupidity on display every chance you get! I’m proud of your dedication! Keep it up. Here let me say it again no I do NOT believe it is happening now, or has ever happened in our history and you still haven’t answered my simple question, just carry on with the insults, and deflections, everyone knows it means you don’t have an answer.

And thanks Methais, for answering such a simple question and yeah I do agree it’s fucking bad. If any president would to do it in the future, it would set a bad precedent.

https://i.imgflip.com/1zkwyw.jpg

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1309180401152393218?s=20

Worthless, piece of shit Democrats shout, scream, and boo during Ruth Bader Ginsburg's memorial service in DC because Trump was in attendance. Look at the comments full of people cheering this degenerate shit on.

What a bunch of miserable and demented time4funs and Kellers there. Imagine actually screeching during a memorial service and thinking you're the good person in this situation.

[Parkbandit]

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1309180401152393218?s=20

Worthless, piece of shit Democrats shout, scream, and boo during Ruth Bader Ginsburg's memorial service in DC because Trump was in attendance. Look at the comments full of people cheering this degenerate shit on.

What a bunch of miserable and demented time4funs and Kellers there. Imagine actually screeching during a memorial service and thinking you're the good person in this situation.

Just remember, Andraste said that people like her are "tired of being the adults in the room"

[Tgo01]

Just remember, Andraste said that people like her are "tired of being the adults in the room"

Oh yeah I forgot. Trump silently pays respects to a woman who hated him, meanwhile the "adults" in the room are screaming like the worthless harpies that they are.

I just don't understand how anyone can willingly choose to be a Democrat. Seems like such a miserable existence.

[Methais]

My original post:



Not sure how you get I said it’s happening now, I never said it was, I even said any president, democrat or Republican to make it clear for you. Obviously, it was too difficult for you to comprehend that.

Page 30: My first reply after I posted original statement on it.


Once again trying to help you understand.



Page 32
I thought maybe the third time would be a charm, nope it wasn’t. You still didn’t understand.



Methais I know you are just lazy, but seriously PB, you really need to work on that reading comprehension, I mean how many times do I need to say it before you understand? You put your stupidity on display every chance you get! I’m proud of your dedication! Keep it up. Here let me say it again no I do NOT believe it is happening now, or has ever happened in our history and you still haven’t answered my simple question, just carry on with the insults, and deflections, everyone knows it means you don’t have an answer.

And thanks Methais, for answering such a simple question and yeah I do agree it’s fucking bad. If any president would to do it in the future, it would set a bad precedent.

It's not even that I'm lazy, even though I am. It's that most of your posts make my eyes glaze over, so at best I just skim through them. Once in a while I'll read an entire post, but usually regret it after.

[RichardCranium]

Maybe they're just trying to start a conversation.

[Parkbandit]

Oh yeah I forgot. Trump silently pays respects to a woman who hated him, meanwhile the "adults" in the room are screaming like the worthless harpies that they are.

I just don't understand how anyone can willingly choose to be a Democrat. Seems like such a miserable existence.

Most liberals are miserable and would like everyone to be as miserable as they are.

[kutter]

Most liberals are miserable and would like everyone to be as miserable as they are.

I know people are going to dispute your post but after I thought about it, I find it to be generally true. My liberal friends and acquaintances are not nearly as happy as my more conservative ones. I have a theory on why this is; conservatives tend to be more self supporting, they do not rely on the government to provide them the things they need to find happiness. The exact opposite of that is true for liberals. They see the government as the remedy for life's ills, and when it does not fulfill them they are unhappy. That is all I have time for now, have to run off for work, but going to spend a little more time thinking about this.

[Solkern]

I know people are going to dispute your post but after I thought about it, I find it to be generally true. My liberal friends and acquaintances are not nearly as happy as my more conservative ones. I have a theory on why this is; conservatives tend to be more self supporting, they do not rely on the government to provide them the things they need to find happiness. The exact opposite of that is true for liberals. They see the government as the remedy for life's ills, and when it does not fulfill them they are unhappy. That is all I have time for now, have to run off for work, but going to spend a little more time thinking about this.

Than why do red states, generally require the most federal aid?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Than why do red states, generally require the most federal aid?

Say that again, but in dollars, not percent of state rev.

[Fortybox]

My original post:



Not sure how you get I said it’s happening now, I never said it was, I even said any president, democrat or Republican to make it clear for you. Obviously, it was too difficult for you to comprehend that.

Page 30: My first reply after I posted original statement on it.


Once again trying to help you understand.



Page 32
I thought maybe the third time would be a charm, nope it wasn’t. You still didn’t understand.



Methais I know you are just lazy, but seriously PB, you really need to work on that reading comprehension, I mean how many times do I need to say it before you understand? You put your stupidity on display every chance you get! I’m proud of your dedication! Keep it up. Here let me say it again no I do NOT believe it is happening now, or has ever happened in our history and you still haven’t answered my simple question, just carry on with the insults, and deflections, everyone knows it means you don’t have an answer.

And thanks Methais, for answering such a simple question and yeah I do agree it’s fucking bad. If any president would to do it in the future, it would set a bad precedent.

This analysis needed like 42 more paragraphs.

[Fortybox]

That we a big god damn fucking problem and would probably end up with a war.


See? It’s not that difficult to answer a question, now why don’t you give it a try and answer mine.

How would you feel if someone decided your question was dumb and irrelevant to the discussion and hence, never answered your question?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How would you feel if someone decided your question was dumb and irrelevant to the discussion and hence, never answered your question?

Lets postulate on your query...

{incoming multi paragraph post with no point or valid argument}

[Fortybox]

Than why do red states, generally require the most federal aid?

Not true.

[Solkern]

Say that again, but in dollars, not percent of state rev.

Sure, is it suppose to change the fact?

Here are the 10 states with the most federal funding per resident:

Virginia ($10,301)
Kentucky ($9,145)
New Mexico ($8,692)
West Virginia ($7,283)
Alaska ($7,048)
Mississippi ($6,880)
Alabama ($6,694)
Maryland ($6,035)
Maine ($5,572)
Hawaii ($5,270)



The ten states with the lowest net federal funding per resident are:

New Jersey (-$2,368)
Massachusetts (-$2,343)
New York (-$1,792)
North Dakota (-$720)
Illinois (-$364)
New Hampshire (-$234)
Washington (-$184)
Nebraska (-$164)
Colorado (-$95)
California ($12)

[kutter]

Than why do red states, generally require the most federal aid?

I fail to see how you can correlate what the federal government spends per capita on a state and my statement. What do the two have to do with one another? Did I say anything about money? Pretty sure I did not, let me look back. Nope not one word about money. You inferred that my statement was about money when I said self-supporting. I would try to explain it but it would be lost on you. Here is a hint though, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Solkern]

I fail to see how you can correlate what the federal government spends per capita on a state and my statement. What do the two have to do with one another? Did I say anything about money? Pretty sure I did not, let me look back. Nope not one word about money. You inferred that my statement was about money when I said self-supporting. I would try to explain it but it would be lost on you. Here is a hint though, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


conservatives tend to be more self supporting, they do not rely on the government to provide them the things they need to find happiness. The exact opposite of that is true for liberals.

From what I posted above, it seems that conservative states and residents tend to lean on the govt for help more than blue states, and are far less self supporting.

You throw out and the pursuit of happiness, what exactly is happiness? Feeding your family? Proper education? Having the govt bail out your farms? Getting assistance from the federal govt? Having a family? It’s not defined or laid out in any document, it’s up for interpretation.

According to multiple scholars, the pursuit of happiness is a euphemism for pursuit of wealth, rags to riches.
Jefferson was supposedly a Epicurean, which further supports this claim that the pursuit of happiness was also about money.
https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/about/why-happiness/jeffersons-happiness/

So yeah, that’s how I connected it to money.

Edited to add: how I take it, the federal supports red states(conservatives) more than blue states so people can live that fabled “American dream” as assistance is needed more in red states

[kutter]

From what I posted above, it seems that conservative states and residents tend to lean on the govt for help more than blue states, and are far less self supporting.

You throw out and the pursuit of happiness, what exactly is happiness? Feeding your family? Proper education? Having the govt bail out your farms? Getting assistance from the federal govt?

By that articles own admission there is no direct correlation between they ratio of how much money a state gets back from the federal government and its political leanings, I mean Kentucky is hardly a bastion of blue and yet it is the state that gets the least back from the feds. Although I confess I would have to dig to figure out why since nothing about Kentucky leaps out at me about that. The states that tend to get more money back though do seem to have 2 things in common, generally speaking. Population density and taxation so it would make sense they would get more back. There are probably more people in Manhattan than in the entire state of Mississippi, in fact I would make a wager on that without even looking it up. It takes a certain amount of money to run a municipality/state government. A fixed cost as it were to just turn the lights on in business parlance. The more people you have to spread that around too then the more money you generate and the more efficient it is, add in the high taxation rate and it makes sense that those states return more. But what the article does not talk about is the number of people leaving those states due to the high taxation which is going to put a very large dent in their tax generation sooner or later. It also does not speak to situations like Californians roughly $86 billion in unfunded liabilities. Sure it looks like California is doing really well, when you look at only the federal return rate as a metric, but between the high tax payers leaving and unfunded liabilities, California is in fairly poor shape. And that situation is hardly unique to California.

All of that gets away from my point though. The fact that you have to ask what happiness is to you only goes to prove my point. You seem to think that it is only one thing or perhaps one or two things, but that is not it and the fact that you seek an answer to what it is, well that says it all, doesn't it. The government cannot guarantee you happiness like they do life and liberty, if they could then my oldest sister would be the happiest person on earth and she is most certainly not. They can only create the environment where you can seek out happiness. Happiness is each persons responsibility, no one else. It is pretty obvious you have not grasped that concept yet.

A conversation with my brother was pretty enlightening when I thought about it. Conservatives seek to make their piece of the world better, knowing that is an achievable goal. In doing so, they accomplish this task which in and of itself brings happiness, but it also makes their lives better. Liberals tend to think more globally and want to fix the worlds woes. Well guess what, there are roughly 3 billion people in the world that don't give a shit about what we want and in fact would just as soon see us dead as not, and that number may be low. So if changing the world is the goal, how can one ever be happy since it is an unobtainable goal, at least for the foreseeable future. Besides people are inherently broken, the only one that can fix them is them.

[Solkern]

All of that gets away from my point though. The fact that you have to ask what happiness is to you only goes to prove my point. You seem to think that it is only one thing or perhaps one or two things, but that is not it and the fact that you seek an answer to what it is, well that says it all, doesn't it. The government cannot guarantee you happiness like they do life and liberty, if they could then my oldest sister would be the happiest person on earth and she is most certainly not. They can only create the environment where you can seek out happiness. Happiness is each persons responsibility, no one else. It is pretty obvious you have not grasped that concept yet.

A conversation with my brother was pretty enlightening when I thought about it. Conservatives seek to make their piece of the world better, knowing that is an achievable goal. In doing so, they accomplish this task which in and of itself brings happiness, but it also makes their lives better. Liberals tend to think more globally and want to fix the worlds woes. Well guess what, there are roughly 3 billion people in the world that don't give a shit about what we want and in fact would just as soon see us dead as not, and that number may be low. So if changing the world is the goal, how can one ever be happy since it is an unobtainable goal, at least for the foreseeable future. Besides people are inherently broken, the only one that can fix them is them.

My happiness question wasn’t a serious one, it was referring to what Jefferson meant when he said “pursuit of happiness” which is open for personal interpretation. Yes I agree that the govt cannot guarantee you happiness, is something that you find on your own and it’s different for each person. It’s about personal fulfillment. I agree with your comment about the liberal mindset, but helping the world isn’t about personal happiness, I tend to think that leans more to giving a shit about other people. Donating any amount of money to charity, brings happiness. What the govt can do is give you assistance with housing, food, good education, assistance with work which lays the ground work for you to be able to find personal happiness without having to worry about this basic things we all need.

I tend to think liberals think happiness in more terms of materialistic items, while conservatives are more about family and non materialistic things. But with that said, getting help from the govt for housing, education, food, work helps both liberals and conservatives achieve their own view of happiness

[kutter]

Actually I just looked at that table and realized I read it backwards, Kentucky is in the hole the most, still not sure why since it does not seem like a state that would be. Mississippi I understand but not Kentucky really.

[Fortybox]

Sure, is it suppose to change the fact?

Here are the 10 states with the most federal funding per resident:

Virginia ($10,301)
Kentucky ($9,145)
New Mexico ($8,692)
West Virginia ($7,283)
Alaska ($7,048)
Mississippi ($6,880)
Alabama ($6,694)
Maryland ($6,035)
Maine ($5,572)
Hawaii ($5,270)



The ten states with the lowest net federal funding per resident are:

New Jersey (-$2,368)
Massachusetts (-$2,343)
New York (-$1,792)
North Dakota (-$720)
Illinois (-$364)
New Hampshire (-$234)
Washington (-$184)
Nebraska (-$164)
Colorado (-$95)
California ($12)

You’re pretty dumb. Spending is different for each state for a variety of reasons. Defense is one of them.

It’s not 100% welfare.

[Tgo01]

Jesus Fucking H Fucking Christ. Just how low and despicable will the Democrats go? I totally thought this was a Babylon Bee headline when I first read it but NOPE! This is fucking real!

Senate resolution honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg fails to pass after Ted Cruz objects to adding her 'dying wish' (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-resolution-honoring-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fails-to-pass-after-ted-cruz-objects-to-adding-her-dying-wish)


A ceremonial resolution honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was pulled after Sen. Ted Cruz objected to language added by the chamber's top Democrat about the liberal icon's dying wish.

"All the kind words and lamentations about Justice Ginsburg from the Republican majority will be totally empty if those Republicans ignore her dying wish and instead replace her with someone who will tear down everything she built," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said regarding the resolution.

Yes that's right! The disgusting, miserable, pieces of shit Democrats in the Senate tried to sneak in a resolution that would honor Bader's supposed dying wish to prevent Trump from replacing her. And you Democrats here on the PC who have the utter audacity to claim Trump is trampling the constitution.

[Methais]

Jesus Fucking H Fucking Christ. Just how low and despicable will the Democrats go? I totally thought this was a Babylon Bee headline when I first read it but NOPE! This is fucking real!

Senate resolution honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg fails to pass after Ted Cruz objects to adding her 'dying wish' (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-resolution-honoring-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fails-to-pass-after-ted-cruz-objects-to-adding-her-dying-wish)



Yes that's right! The disgusting, miserable, pieces of shit Democrats in the Senate tried to sneak in a resolution that would honor Bader's supposed dying wish to prevent Trump from replacing her. And you Democrats here on the PC who have the utter audacity to claim Trump is trampling the constitution.

I'm just ready to see what democrats do when Barrett is nominated since the sexism/rape/race cards will all be out of play this time, even though democrats will still probably try to play them anyway.

[Solkern]

Spending is different for each state for a variety of reasons. Defense is one of them.

It’s not 100% welfare.

Yup I agree, but that doesn’t say everything about it.

Federal aid is allocated to states for a variety of purposes. After the federal government generates revenue from taxes, it is redistributed to the states based on need. Not all states benefit equally from this redistribution.

Federal aid is distributed to states for transportation, public education, Medicaid, community development, and other programs vital to residents.

States that receive more federal aid tend to have poorer populations, lower tax revenues and have more assistance programs such as Medicaid. States with higher income residents tend to receive less federal aid.

Federal aid can be allocated in the form of competitive grants, which are likely to fluctuate from year to year. Federal aid is also awarded from formula grants that incorporate population and poverty statistics.

[Solkern]

Jesus Fucking H Fucking Christ. Just how low and despicable will the Democrats go? I totally thought this was a Babylon Bee headline when I first read it but NOPE! This is fucking real!

Senate resolution honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg fails to pass after Ted Cruz objects to adding her 'dying wish' (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-resolution-honoring-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fails-to-pass-after-ted-cruz-objects-to-adding-her-dying-wish)



Yes that's right! The disgusting, miserable, pieces of shit Democrats in the Senate tried to sneak in a resolution that would honor Bader's supposed dying wish to prevent Trump from replacing her. And you Democrats here on the PC who have the utter audacity to claim Trump is trampling the constitution.

I read about this on different websites. CNN left out that part. Fox News said Dems are trying to sneak language in, non-bias news sources said it was plainly written for people to see and the Dems added it but didn’t try to sneak it in

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Sure, is it suppose to change the fact?

Here are the 10 states with the most federal funding per resident:

Virginia ($10,301)
Kentucky ($9,145)
New Mexico ($8,692)
West Virginia ($7,283)
Alaska ($7,048)
Mississippi ($6,880)
Alabama ($6,694)
Maryland ($6,035)
Maine ($5,572)
Hawaii ($5,270)



The ten states with the lowest net federal funding per resident are:

New Jersey (-$2,368)
Massachusetts (-$2,343)
New York (-$1,792)
North Dakota (-$720)
Illinois (-$364)
New Hampshire (-$234)
Washington (-$184)
Nebraska (-$164)
Colorado (-$95)
California ($12)

I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. Put total funding next to each states name. Not per resident, not percent.

[Solkern]

I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. Put total funding next to each states name. Not per resident, not percent.

Oh so, I can amply leave out population size and other relevant factors, so you can see big number and say SEE?!
Gotcha.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh, you knew the facts and choose not to share them? Do go on ignoring the massive difference in amount.

[Tgo01]

Sure, is it suppose to change the fact?

Here are the 10 states with the most federal funding per resident:

Virginia ($10,301)
Kentucky ($9,145)
New Mexico ($8,692)
West Virginia ($7,283)
Alaska ($7,048)
Mississippi ($6,880)
Alabama ($6,694)
Maryland ($6,035)
Maine ($5,572)
Hawaii ($5,270)



The ten states with the lowest net federal funding per resident are:

New Jersey (-$2,368)
Massachusetts (-$2,343)
New York (-$1,792)
North Dakota (-$720)
Illinois (-$364)
New Hampshire (-$234)
Washington (-$184)
Nebraska (-$164)
Colorado (-$95)
California ($12)


Red state/blue state federal funding is always a dumb talking point from the left. First of all whoever makes these lists go by how the state voted for president in the most recent election, which says nothing about the state leadership who makes the laws and spending budgets, nor who controlled the state in the recent past that might have had an impact on spending today.

Second of all it's beyond dumb to compare a state like California, who mostly lucked in to things like Silicon Valley, to a state like West Virginia that is mostly an energy based economy and guess what? Democrats have been trying their hardest to replace our energy with ineffective shit like wind and solar, which of course negatively impacts states like West Virginia. Democrats then sit there smugly and say stupid shit like "I wonder why these poor backwards red states need so much federal help! GUFFAW!"

Then you have states like Virginia that have 120k military personnel stationed there compared to a larger state like NJ which only has around 8k. Oh wait, since Virginia voted for Hillary in 2016 that magically makes that a blue state now. My bad!

Let's not forget federal employees! Massachusetts has a 30% bigger population than Alabama yet Massachusetts has about 15% fewer federal employees. ZOMG! All of Alabama is suckling at Uncle Sam's teet looking for a free handout!

There is much more nuance to federal spending on a state by state basis other than "LOL WELFARE!" This is just another dumb liberal talking point to make themselves feel better.

[Tgo01]

I read about this on different websites. CNN left out that part. Fox News said Dems are trying to sneak language in, non-bias news sources said it was plainly written for people to see and the Dems added it but didn’t try to sneak it in

I don't think the language was sneaked in, I think the resolution itself is sneaky, it's designed to be a win/win for Democrats no matter what.

Republicans either go along with this bullshit and allow Democrats to piss all over the constitution, or they do the thing any normal and rational human being would do (vote against it) and now Democrats can claim Republicans don't care about honoring Ginsburg.

[Solkern]

I don't think the language was sneaked in, I think the resolution itself is sneaky, it's designed to be a win/win for Democrats no matter what.

Republicans either go along with this bullshit and allow Democrats to piss all over the constitution, or they do the thing any normal and rational human being would do (vote against it) and now Democrats can claim Republicans don't care about honoring Ginsburg.

Yeah I can see how it could be that.

[Fortybox]

Oh so, I can amply leave out population size and other relevant factors, so you can see big number and say SEE?!
Gotcha.

It would destroy your narrative. That’s why.

[Blazar]

Democrats have been trying their hardest to replace our energy with ineffective shit like wind and solar, which of course negatively impacts states like West Virginia. Democrats then sit there smugly and say stupid shit like "I wonder why these poor backwards red states need so much federal help! GUFFAW!".

LOL... again, with your dumbassery and misinformation.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX


Texas is the top U.S. producer of both crude oil and natural gas. In 2019, the state accounted for 41% of the nation's crude oil production and 25% of its marketed natural gas production.
As of January 2019, the 30 petroleum refineries in Texas were able to process about 5.8 million barrels of crude oil per day and accounted for 31% of the nation's refining capacity.
Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation and produced about 28% of all the U.S. wind-powered electricity in 2019. Texas wind turbines have produced more electricity than both of the state's nuclear power plants since 2014.
Texas produces more electricity than any other state, generating almost twice as much as Florida, the second-highest electricity-producing state.
Texas is the largest energy-producing and energy-consuming state in the nation. The industrial sector, including its refineries and petrochemical plants, accounts for half of the energy consumed in the state.

Yep, but it's ineffective... what a fucking idiot you are.

You really are as dumb as Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/23/trump-bizarre-tirade-windmills

I suppose you think the noise from them causes cancer too? Damn dude, stop being dumb.

[Tgo01]

Texas wind turbines have produced more electricity than both of the state's nuclear power plants since 2014.

My bad, I meant to say "inefficient" not "ineffective", although ineffective almost works too.

If you still disagree with my "inefficient" comment then I present the following:

A) Certain parts of Texas happen to be an ideal spot to build wind turbines, not every place in the world is an ideal spot for wind turbines.
!) How much money did all of those turbines cost, what are the annual upkeep for the wind turbines, what are the life expectancy of the wind turbines, and what kind of damage do the wind turbines cause compared to 2 new nuclear power plants?

Nuclear is a shit ton more efficient than coal but that doesn't mean you can't produce more electricity with coal plants if you build enough of them compared to nuclear plants.

[Blazar]

My bad, I meant to say "inefficient" not "ineffective", although ineffective almost works too.

If you still disagree with my "inefficient" comment then I present the following:

A) Certain parts of Texas happen to be an ideal spot to build wind turbines, not every place in the world is an ideal spot for wind turbines.
!) How much money did all of those turbines cost, what are the annual upkeep for the wind turbines, what are the life expectancy of the wind turbines, and what kind of damage do the wind turbines cause compared to 2 new nuclear power plants?

Nuclear is a shit ton more efficient than coal but that doesn't mean you can't produce more electricity with coal plants if you build enough of them compared to nuclear plants.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.

For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.

And uh... Chernobyl and Fukushima anyone? Where wind isn't viable, go solar. Use both for redundancy. Create a national power grid capable of transferring and storing power efficiently, and it's no contest. As we continue to develop wind and solar technologies, costs will only go down. They've even found ways to lower the amount of birds being killed by turbines. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine-blades-help-birds-avoid-deadly-collisions-180975668/#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20published%20last%20month ,the%20Norwegian%20archipelago%20of%20Sm%C3%B8la.&text=House%20cats%2C%20meanwhile%2C%20exterminate% 20an,to%204%20billion%20birds%20annually.)

[~Rocktar~]

Chernobyl can't happen in the western world since we build reactors completely differently. Fukushima is also nearly impossible since we don't build where there are faults and places to be subject to major tsunami's. Fear mongering bullshit like this along with eco-whackos with an agenda are why we are so far behind in nuclear power and getting scammed by the BS of solar and wind power, both of which have their own issues and cause a good bit of pollution.

[Tgo01]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J


And uh... Chernobyl and Fukushima anyone? Where wind isn't viable, go solar. Use both for redundancy. Create a national power grid capable of transferring and storing power efficiently, and it's no contest. As we continue to develop wind and solar technologies, costs will only go down. They've even found ways to lower the amount of birds being killed by turbines. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine-blades-help-birds-avoid-deadly-collisions-180975668/#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20published%20last%20month ,the%20Norwegian%20archipelago%20of%20Sm%C3%B8la.&text=House%20cats%2C%20meanwhile%2C%20exterminate% 20an,to%204%20billion%20birds%20annually.)

First I'm hearing that solar and wind is more cost effective than nuclear. Does this take the land into account? It would take a lot of solar panels and wind turbines to produce as much electricity as one nuclear plant, not to mention solar panels and wind turbines have a limited lifespan. Something tells me a bunch of green freaks helped write that report.

Not to mention those things need sun and wind to produce electricity, what are we going to do when we don't have those two things? Why not just have nuclear that doesn't have this problem?

Also enough with the fear mongering over nuclear. It should tell you something that in over 50 years of nuclear energy you have to go back 40 years to think of an example of something bad happening with it.

[Solkern]

Chernobyl can't happen in the western world since we build reactors completely differently. Fukushima is also nearly impossible since we don't build where there are faults and places to be subject to major tsunami's. Fear mongering bullshit like this along with eco-whackos with an agenda are why we are so far behind in nuclear power and getting scammed by the BS of solar and wind power, both of which have their own issues and cause a good bit of pollution.

I’m not sure if you are trying to say the exact type of nuclear disaster can’t happen in the states, or if nuclear disasters can’t happen in the states, because yeah nuclear disasters can happen. Pretty sure Blazar was referencing a nuclear disaster in general. We’ve had a nuclear disaster in the states already, on 3 mile island. While fortunately no deaths immediately, the radiation released has caused quite a lot of problems.

[Gelston]

I’m not sure if you are trying to say the exact type of nuclear disaster can’t happen in the states, or if nuclear disasters can’t happen in the states, because yeah nuclear disasters can happen. Pretty sure Blazar was referencing a nuclear disaster in general. We’ve had a nuclear disaster in the states already, on 3 mile island. While fortunately no deaths immediately, the radiation released has caused quite a lot of problems.

Such a bad disastor that there is no noticeable increase in cancer rates and the site is still used to generate power.

[Risen]

Well, I mean. Close?

Fact: https://www.exeloncorp.com/locations/three-mile-island-decommissioning

But no detection of increased background radiation and to the best of my knowledge no settled lawsuit on increases in cancer rates and the like has occurred.

Fact: 2,000 pending cases were dismissed June 1996 due to lack of evidence. https://apnews.com/article/c24efcb5a4d1b61f83ad1142cd0b2464

[kutter]

The simple fact of the matter is that solar is inherently inefficient. Even the best panels on the planet are only 22-23% efficient. This leads to covering huge areas with panels to generate power. Hybrid thermal/natural gas solar plants are a better utilization of space than photovoltaic cells but still require large areas. Wind, well, wind is too fickle to be counted on as the only source. The future of energy production is in fusion nuclear reactors. They consume their own waste, so very little is left over and they do not operate in such a way as a meltdown is possible. Unfortunately, as of yet, we cannot crack the code on how to make them work, but a bunch of smaller companies are working on a fission-fusion hybrid with some real advantages over old fission reactors. The stuff gets way to technical for me, but it seems pretty interesting, especially since there is almost no waste and the reaction is not super critical so no meltdowns.

Unless people are willing to give up fresh food, AC, driving their cars/boats/motorcycles/atvs then solar and wind will never be able to fill the need.

[Tgo01]

First I'm hearing that solar and wind is more cost effective than nuclear. Does this take the land into account? It would take a lot of solar panels and wind turbines to produce as much electricity as one nuclear plant, not to mention solar panels and wind turbines have a limited lifespan. Something tells me a bunch of green freaks helped write that report.

WNISR. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_Industry_Status_Report)


The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is a yearly report on the nuclear power industry. It is produced by Mycle Schneider, a founding member of WISE-Paris, which is the French branch of the anti-nuclear group WISE, which he directed from 1983 to 2003

WISE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Information_Service_on_Energy)


The World Information Service on Energy (WISE) is an anti-nuclear group founded in 1978 to be an information and networking center for citizens and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. The organization advocates the implementation of safe, sustainable solutions such as energy efficiency and, renewable energy.

You can't make this shit up.

[Blazar]

WNISR. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_Industry_Status_Report)



WISE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Information_Service_on_Energy)



You can't make this shit up.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Government source supports it as well. And as storage technology increases, it'll only get cheaper. But whatever man, think what you want, doesn't make two shits of a difference to me.

[Blazar]

The simple fact of the matter is that solar is inherently inefficient. Even the best panels on the planet are only 22-23% efficient. This leads to covering huge areas with panels to generate power. Hybrid thermal/natural gas solar plants are a better utilization of space than photovoltaic cells but still require large areas. Wind, well, wind is too fickle to be counted on as the only source. The future of energy production is in fusion nuclear reactors. They consume their own waste, so very little is left over and they do not operate in such a way as a meltdown is possible. Unfortunately, as of yet, we cannot crack the code on how to make them work, but a bunch of smaller companies are working on a fission-fusion hybrid with some real advantages over old fission reactors. The stuff gets way to technical for me, but it seems pretty interesting, especially since there is almost no waste and the reaction is not super critical so no meltdowns.

Unless people are willing to give up fresh food, AC, driving their cars/boats/motorcycles/atvs then solar and wind will never be able to fill the need.

Never huh? Bold statements there man. I don't know where vehicles come into play though... you going to power your vehicles with nuclear or fission? I don't think so, so how is this relevant? Wouldn't you think that wind and solar generation are more viable for a vehicle than nuclear? I mean seriously.

What if they never crack the code for fission? What if it takes 100 years (it's already been an idea for over 75)? Even if it only takes us another 20 years to make it work, how long then will it take us to build the plants needed? You don't think efficiency in wind and solar can be increased to make it 100% viable when combined with better storage technology? What exactly would make you think that?

[~Rocktar~]

I’m not sure if you are trying to say the exact type of nuclear disaster can’t happen in the states, or if nuclear disasters can’t happen in the states, because yeah nuclear disasters can happen. Pretty sure Blazar was referencing a nuclear disaster in general. We’ve had a nuclear disaster in the states already, on 3 mile island. While fortunately no deaths immediately, the radiation released has caused quite a lot of problems.

Because English is hard. I was perfectly clear that the Chernobyl disaster can't because of the fundamental differences in how we build reactors. We have much greater concerns for nuclear disasters in the US than reactors but hey, all of the eco whackos and ignorant fucks like yourself can't manage to understand how we can deal with them. Our major concerns are nuclear waste management and the complete ineptitude of generations past in accounting for material. We have a facility pretty much ready for permanent burial but it was canceled because of some idiot whackos lawsuit over an possible earthquake that might happen in 20,000 years. The assumption is that we can bury waste materials safely for a period of time until we develop effective reuse/re manufacturing techniques to recover/reuse/clean up the waste. "But but it's nuclear and it's all bad." has been the media and idiot mantra for decades.

This ignorance has driven more reliance on fossil fuels for much longer than would have happened if the technology and development hadn't drug to nearly a complete halt. Instead of small, efficient, clean reactors, we are stuck with an aging fleet of 60's tech that we have to keep patching because building new reactors like building new power plants is almost impossible, again because of ignorant morons in the eco whacko movement and their willing stooges in the media.

But yay, wind and solar, manufactured elsewhere with it's own levels of pollution of manufacture and high upkeep costs will make us energy independent. Right . . .

[~Rocktar~]

Never huh? Bold statements there man. I don't know where vehicles come into play though... you going to power your vehicles with nuclear or fission? I don't think so, so how is this relevant? Wouldn't you think that wind and solar generation are more viable for a vehicle than nuclear? I mean seriously.

What if they never crack the code for fission? What if it takes 100 years (it's already been an idea for over 75)? Even if it only takes us another 20 years to make it work, how long then will it take us to build the plants needed? You don't think efficiency in wind and solar can be increased to make it 100% viable when combined with better storage technology? What exactly would make you think that?

Yes, NEVER. As was previously mentioned, photovoltaic cells are pretty inefficient and even the largest leaps we have made haven't improved that over the past 30 years by more than 5% despite the fact that someone came up with a hybrid means to keep them cool so they don't break down as fast. Then there is the manufacturing and pollution associated with them and the need for limited materials. For 30+ of those 75 years, the research has been on a shoestring again because "nuclear bad" in much the same way you crybullies go on about Trump. As to building plants, well, with a decent design, we can build a lot of them very fast, if we want too.

And no, wind and solar won't support society until we get some kind of effective space to ground transmission like in Star Trek. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow, sometimes the sun doesn't shine and making batteries to power whole cities is inane other than when we build hydro pumping stations to save power but they are not as efficient as only generating what you need when you need it.

[Tgo01]

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Government source supports it as well.


As a result, LCOE values for wind and solar technologies are not directly comparable with the LCOE values for other technologies that may have a similar average annual capacity factor. Consequently, they are shown separately as non-dispatchable technologies. Similarly, hydroelectric resources, including facilities where storage reservoirs allow for more flexible day-to-day operation, generally have high seasonal variation in output. EIA shows them as non-dispatchable to discourage comparison with technologies that have more consistent seasonal availability.

Oh.

[Blazar]

Oh.

No where in there does it say that they are ineffective or inefficient, which are the statements you made and I refuted. As far as I can tell, you still made an incorrect statement. Even if the cost is close to each other, that makes them both viable technologies, and doesn't make either one ineffective or inefficient. Right?

Seems to me that once again what is needed is a balance, and a better solution still to be developed. Which is in the works, I do agree that fission is the long term answer, but changes are needed here and now. I struggle to see where making use of all of the resources, and not being reliant on any one thing, is a bad thing.


This ignorance has driven more reliance on fossil fuels for much longer than would have happened if the technology and development hadn't drug to nearly a complete halt. Instead of small, efficient, clean reactors, we are stuck with an aging fleet of 60's tech that we have to keep patching because building new reactors like building new power plants is almost impossible, again because of ignorant morons in the eco whacko movement and their willing stooges in the media.


I would argue that it would have been equally ignorant to keep plowing forward with a technology without doing due diligence in ensuring it is safe when it is capable of massive destruction. Only fools wield power blindly. If it were so obviously safe, that would have been easy to prove, right? It's easy to say these things in hindsight, but 50 years ago we just didn't know enough. Kind of like with COVID, we just didn't know much in the early stages. That said, with sufficient scientifically proven data, stances should definitely evolve. I didn't know a lot about nuclear before this conversation, but from what I read, you are correct that it is near impossible for us to experience a major reactor event like Chernobyl due to reactor design, and I am not personally against it. I did know a bit more about solar because I have worked with it in the past, designing systems to power internet and wireless terminals in remote places.

I still think having power generation distributed over many sources is the way to go though, and not being reliant on any one thing. At some point, we will run out of uranium, so using wind and solar at least pushes that out further. There's good and bad to everything... if it was so obviously advantageous and safe, why would there be any consternation?

You're probably right that we couldn't sustain on wind and solar alone, but you sure do have a lot of confidence speaking in absolutes... you must have a crystal ball or something that I don't have. I'd wager that plenty of people said flying, going to space, or talking to someone in real time across the world was NEVER going to happen too. Shit happens man, personally I choose not to be so rigid in my thinking that I close off possibilities. I do think it's possible with the right advances in technology, just not probable.

[Tgo01]

No where in there does it say that they are ineffective or inefficient

Capacity factor:
Nuclear: 90%
Wind, onshore: 40%
Solar photovoltaic: 29%

Oh.

[Blazar]

Capacity factor means percent of time they are running at max capacity. Does something have to be running at max capacity to be effective and/or efficient? I don't believe so.... Try again please.

As a real world example, I have a car. I use it to go places. While the capacity of that car is technically 1440 minutes per day, I might only use it anywhere from 0-60 minutes per day. So I am not running it at max capacity, but I think that it effectively does what I need it to do, and is plenty efficient in doing so (it's a fast car so I get places very fast).

[Tgo01]

Capacity factor means percent of time they are running at max capacity. Does something have to be running at max capacity to be effective and/or efficient? I don't believe so.... Try again please.

No you’re totally right, a power plant producing energy at max capacity 29% of the time is totally efficient.

[~Rocktar~]

I would argue that it would have been equally ignorant to keep plowing forward with a technology without doing due diligence in ensuring it is safe when it is capable of massive destruction. Only fools wield power blindly. If it were so obviously safe, that would have been easy to prove, right? It's easy to say these things in hindsight, but 50 years ago we just didn't know enough. Kind of like with COVID, we just didn't know much in the early stages. That said, with sufficient scientifically proven data, stances should definitely evolve. I didn't know a lot about nuclear before this conversation, but from what I read, you are correct that it is near impossible for us to experience a major reactor event like Chernobyl due to reactor design, and I am not personally against it. I did know a bit more about solar because I have worked with it in the past, designing systems to power internet and wireless terminals in remote places.

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.


I still think having power generation distributed over many sources is the way to go though, and not being reliant on any one thing. At some point, we will run out of uranium, so using wind and solar at least pushes that out further. There's good and bad to everything... if it was so obviously advantageous and safe, why would there be any consternation?

Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.


You're probably right that we couldn't sustain on wind and solar alone, but you sure do have a lot of confidence speaking in absolutes... you must have a crystal ball or something that I don't have. I'd wager that plenty of people said flying, going to space, or talking to someone in real time across the world was NEVER going to happen too. Shit happens man, personally I choose not to be so rigid in my thinking that I close off possibilities. I do think it's possible with the right advances in technology, just not probable.

Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

[Geijon]

Coming from a guy who thinks Civil War in America is coming I question your mental state, Rocktard. Please forgive me when I consider literally anything you post bullshit.

If Civil war is coming in America you'd either A. Sit in your bunker til you ran out of food and died or B. Die on day 1.

Your mother obviously breast fed you til you were about 8.

[Geijon]

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.



Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.



Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

Type more words.

[~Rocktar~]

Coming from a guy who thinks Civil War in America is coming I question your mental state, Rocktard. Please forgive me when I consider literally anything you post bullshit.

If Civil war is coming in America you'd either A. Sit in your bunker til you ran out of food and died or B. Die on day 1.

Your mother obviously breast fed you til you were about 8.

Whatever gets your rocks off fucknuts.

[Blazar]

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.



Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.



Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

Sorry, but if protocols were known and not being followed, then the human error factor comes into play, making it unsafe. If you can't trust people to replace parts when dealing with a dangerous technology, how safe is that?

I'm no eco whacko, and as I clearly stated, I'm not against nuclear power. I just think it's smart to have diversity. I don't know why you think we need as much power as you do... but if we do, going full nuclear sounds like a bad idea still because we know our uranium reserves are finite. You say we need all this power now, but sounds like you aren't even considering sustainability beyond your life time., and that's wrong. Again, you have to balance things.

Not sure why you think my comparison is moronic, but okay buddy. Breakthroughs happen, and sometimes they come when you least expect it. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't say what will happen, but I am open to many possibilities. You say it won't cut it, but look, I'll post this again:


Texas is the top U.S. producer of both crude oil and natural gas. In 2019, the state accounted for 41% of the nation's crude oil production and 25% of its marketed natural gas production.
As of January 2019, the 30 petroleum refineries in Texas were able to process about 5.8 million barrels of crude oil per day and accounted for 31% of the nation's refining capacity.
Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation and produced about 28% of all the U.S. wind-powered electricity in 2019. Texas wind turbines have produced more electricity than both of the state's nuclear power plants since 2014.
Texas produces more electricity than any other state, generating almost twice as much as Florida, the second-highest electricity-producing state.
Texas is the largest energy-producing and energy-consuming state in the nation. The industrial sector, including its refineries and petrochemical plants, accounts for half of the energy consumed in the state.

Perhaps Texas is just unique, but those numbers show a very different story from what you are saying. Solar is admittedly the least efficient renewable energy. But why not pursue advances in all of it, as we are today? What do we lose by trying to improve all power generation types? You are working with this exclusive view that it's fossil fuels or nothing, but real life is saying something completely different.

If it isn't going to cut it, why is Texas producing more electricity with wind than nuclear, even as the highest producing state??

And I posted another article regarding bird population, and painting the turbines black results in a much lower death rate for birds. You think nuclear can be improved, but other sources can't? I don't follow your "logic" here. Although, thank you for the great discussion, I'd say this is the most engaging conversation on her that I've had with you. You've made some good points I just think you're off base on a few things personally.

[~Rocktar~]

Why even respond with that limp shit. YOU ARE READY FOR WAR BRO?

You're a fucking idiot whenever you post. Walls of text or gun toting civil war bullshit. Sit down and shut up.

Look at you tryharding to sound like an adult and worse yet, relevant. You should take your own advice and sit down, shut up and maybe grow up before thinking you have anything to add to a conversation anywhere. Your ignorance and idiocy are approaching levels not normally seen outside of a title bout. Maybe PB can arrange one for you but I am pretty sure you don't have the required flair and style to secure a shot. But you keep doing you, gods above know no one else wants to.

[Tgo01]

The absolutely disgusting, pieces of shit are already at it. Sources indicate that Trump's replacement for Ginsburg is Amy Barrett. Since she's a woman they can't very well accuse her of being a gang rapist, so what are they doing? Attacking her for adopting children from Haiti.

No, really, this is the strategy they are going for. The "only adults" in the room are literally accusing a white woman of being a bigoted white supremacist because she adopted 2 children from Haiti. Oh oh! They are also accusing her of kidnapping the children too.

These adults are the absolute worst kind of scum to have ever lived.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eiz2ThtVgAAqX5T?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eiz2TiCVoAMebfy?format=jpg&name=large

I can't wait to see what other smears these "adults" come up with next. Should be a metric fuckton of slander.

[Tgo01]

Nice font sizes btw.

I've seen some lame ass insults on the PC before, but making fun of someone for using the default font size? Yikes. Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back too hard for that one.

[Parkbandit]

Even if nobody says anything, you'll make 100 posts. May as well get started tgo. Nice font sizes btw. Nobody can read your shit, which is probably for the better.

As an actual point we got 39 days until the election. Most nominees take 50+. I guess she can be another Merrick Garland.

She won't be a Merrick Garland.. because she will be confirmed.

And it's 39 days until the election, but even if President Trump lost, he would still have 116 days to get his nominee confirmed.

That's plenty of time.

Sorry, you lost.

[Parkbandit]

I've seen some lame ass insults on the PC before, but making fun of someone for using the default font size? Yikes. Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back too hard for that one.

In Geijon's defense, he probably doesn't understand that you linked an image, got confused and thought you wrote that out and used big fonts.

Him don't right good comprehension good like us.

[Geijon]

She won't be a Merrick Garland.. because she will be confirmed.

And it's 39 days until the election, but even if President Trump lost, he would still have 116 days to get his nominee confirmed.

That's plenty of time.

Sorry, you lost.

Personally, unphased by her nomination if it ends up being her. I'm perfectly aware when the new congress starts and when inauguration is.

He's losing the Senate this election or most of the Republican majority. The 2018 mid-terms as a trend haven't changed and it's more slanted now. You were wrong on your predictions then too. Oddsmakers (https://bookies.com/news/senate-races-odds-tracker). The main reason he's been functional as a President is because the Republican party had a stooge and a majority and that's why Russia ended up liking him after trying to be disruptive initially. Most models had him winning even after all the lies, misogamy and embarrassment, but he'll still be your idol it seems as a lame duck President. Gridlock is nice because it requires discussion and if we aren't going to have any then he'll be functionally checked by the other two branches of government.

The Republicans have loved him because he's been a dope, says outlandish, boisterous falsehoods that resonate with white, rural Americans who feel pinched by changing revenue streams in America, he rails against Tech and wants to hold onto the 1950s-1970s that a lot of you cronies view as the ""Glory Days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQpW9XRiyM)" and as long as he didn't stain them directly, which he has put a bunch of them at risk, most of them happily used his leverage to accomplish their agenda. Nothing like greedy politics, or really, same old, same old. Lindsey Graham is a prime example of this flip-flop, disloyal politician type. He turned on everything, but that has really been his entire career. Remember the ""Drain the Swamp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjYu02Xn04w)" message? You can go re-live it, but it never happened.

The same moral high ground or stance folks have for Abortion isn't very different than why a lot of people think little of Trump. It's why we don't agree. The vitriol is the problem. I'm not losing either way. We might be, not you or me seemingly, which is your selfish point most of the time. It's about you, The American Dream was "I earned it" and that is how most Republicans feel. Folks feel some kind of welfare threat and it's easy to stoke that socialist line when most are over 60 and rely on the government to keep their stocks inflated, their 401K safe, and oddly the social security checks coming.

Trump was only rich because of his daddy before. Now he's rich because he swindled about 16 million in taxpayer money for himself as President.

[Parkbandit]

Personally, unphased by her nomination if it ends up being her. I'm perfectly aware when the new congress starts and when inauguration is.

You sounded confused (as usual) given that you literally said "As an actual point we got 39 days until the election. Most nominees take 50+. I guess she can be another Merrick Garland." If you didn't mean he has 39 days to make the nomination and have her confirmed.. what specifically did you mean? You were incorrect (common theme with you) given that Merrick Garland wasn't confirmed. She will be confirmed.


He's losing the Senate this election or most of the Republican majority.

I'm sure we can put this right up there with all your political predictions...


The 2018 mid-terms as a trend haven't changed and it's more slanted now. You were wrong on your predictions then too.

Was I? Care to quote it? And I love that you are putting all your faith and hopes into polling data. I mean, they were wrong in 2016.. no way they could possibly be wrong again...


The main reason he's been functional as a President is because the Republican party had a stooge and a majority and that's why Russia ended up liking him after trying to be disruptive initially. Most models had him winning even after all the lies, misogamy and embarrassment, but he'll still be your idol it seems as a lame duck President. Gridlock is nice because it requires discussion and if we aren't going to have any then he'll be functionally checked by the other two branches of government.

God damn son.. don't you wish you knew what you were speaking of at least ONE time?


The Republicans have loved him because he's been a dope, says outlandish, boisterous falsehoods that resonate with white, rural Americans who feel pinched by changing revenue streams in America, he rails against Tech and wants to hold onto the 1950s-1970s that a lot of you cronies view as the "Glory Days" and as long as he didn't stain them directly, which he has put a bunch of them at risk, most of them happily used his leverage to accomplish their agenda. Nothing like greedy politics, or really, same old, same old. Lindsey Graham is a prime example of this flip-flop, disloyal politician type. He turned on everything, but that has really been his entire career. Remember the "Drain the Swamp" message? You can go re-live it, but it never happened.

The same moral high ground or stance folks have for Abortion isn't very different than why a lot of people think little of Trump. It's why we don't agree. The vitriol is the problem. I'm not losing either way. We might be, not you or me seemingly, which is your selfish point most of the time. It's about you, The American Dream was "I earned it" and that is how most Republicans feel. Folks feel some kind of welfare threat and it's easy to stoke that socialist line when most are over 60 and rely on the government to keep their stocks inflated, their 401K safe, and oddly the social security checks coming.

God knows I tried to translate this into something intelligent.. but I just don't have the patience. Let's just all agree how fucking retarded and triggered you are and let it go.


Trump was only rich because of his daddy before. Now he's rich because he swindled about 16 million in taxpayer money for himself as President.

Uh huh. Got a source for this 16 million claim because it's unlikely anyone knows what the fuck you are crying about this time?

[Tgo01]

Judge Amy Coney Barrett it is!

Let the slander begin! Who on the PC is gonna start us off?

[Parkbandit]

You seem to be the one with the comprehension problem.

I'm not the one that asked if I wrote my comprehension well.... that was you. 4 syllable words confuse you though...


Here is some sources for the money though.
CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/trump-properties-made-over-17-million-from-campaign-rnc-since-2016.html)
Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties) - They got him at 22 million.
Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496)

No big deal when he's worth 434 million though, but if he got 413 million from his daddy.....interesting math. It sounds like he never generated new wealth. He's not rich, he's wealthy because of his family. Period.

Looks like he generated at least 21 million dollars.. according to you and you numbers.

You do realize that 434 > 413, right?

You seem quite upset by this? Did Daddy Trump not send you another WIC check this month? Don't worry... 4 more days until the 1st of the month!

[Solkern]

Judge Amy Coney Barrett it is!

Let the slander begin! Who on the PC is gonna start us off?

I think she’s a good and safe pick. I also believe she’s not going to be a sure thing to always go conservative either with her voting.

[Shaps]

I think she’s a good and safe pick. I also believe she’s not going to be a sure thing to always go conservative either with her voting.

Which is a good thing.

People think Judges are supposed to have "opinions". They're not. They're supposed to apply the law as it is written by our lawmakers.

We have liberal, conservative and independent lawmakers throughout our history. Hence we have liberal, conservative, and independent laws on the books.

If our politicians would do their job, as it is designed, then the "leaning" of any Judge should be for the most part irrelevant. Because our politicians are so fucked up, and can't do their jobs properly... selections for the courts is such a big deal.

Sad really that our own policy makers fuck up the system because they're to stupid, inept, lazy, or corrupt to do things the right way and properly express the will of their constituents.

Edit: That goes for "activist Judges" also. Whatever their leaning, I hate it if they think their personal beliefs should override the policies and laws established by the People's representatives. If everyone just did their job as outlined, half this controversy and hatred would disappear. Unfortunately, people are people and believe their job titles afford them more power than they should actually have.

[Blazar]

I'm not the one that asked if I wrote my comprehension well.... that was you. 4 syllable words confuse you though...



Looks like he generated at least 21 million dollars.. according to you and you numbers.

You do realize that 434 > 413, right?

You seem quite upset by this? Did Daddy Trump not send you another WIC check this month? Don't worry... 4 more days until the 1st of the month!

He's really not a good business man, but he is a damn good criminal and con artist. There's plenty of information out there documenting his shady as fuck business dealings, primarily with Deutsche Bank. Probably over your head to comprehend how much of a shit bag he is though.

Even given the standard 6% ROI that most people tend to expect just from the market, much less direct business investments, shouldn't he be significantly wealthier than this? Wealth begets wealth, but not if you're a terrible business man, know what I'm saying?

Still not sure where Geijon is pulling these numbers from though. His income is no where near the number he cited, and his net worth is significantly higher.

Here's some better info, and the fact that the presidency may actually be costing him some money, but of course he covers his portion of the failings with excuses and lies. I mean come on, who lies about the size of their fucking penthouse? Shit bags, that's who.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/08/14/no-trump-is-not-losing-3-to-5-billion-from-presidency/#585168144a2d

[Shaps]

He's really not a good business man, but he is a damn good criminal and con artist. There's plenty of information out there documenting his shady as fuck business dealings, primarily with Deutsche Bank. Probably over your head to comprehend how much of a shit bag he is though.

Even given the standard 6% ROI that most people tend to expect just from the market, much less direct business investments, shouldn't he be significantly wealthier than this? Wealth begets wealth, but not if you're a terrible business man, know what I'm saying?

Still not sure where Geijon is pulling these numbers from though. His income is no where near the number he cited, and his net worth is significantly higher.

Here's some better info, and the fact that the presidency may actually be costing him some money, but of course he covers his portion of the failings with excuses and lies. I mean come on, who lies about the size of their fucking penthouse? Shit bags, that's who.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/08/14/no-trump-is-not-losing-3-to-5-billion-from-presidency/#585168144a2d

Not informed enough on the money side so won't address it.

As for "who lies about the size of their fucking penthouse"? - Do you think embellishing ones accomplishments, lifestyle, or money is solely done by Donald Trump?

I would direct you:

1. to examine your life - never embellished? Doubtful.
2. to examine every magazine, business, tv show, internet influencer, sports team, singer, actor, etc. - they've never embellished? Doubtful.
3. to examine society as a whole - we as a people have never embellished? Doubtful.

I can get going after possible bad business practices - but going after a guy who's led a pretty incredible life because he talks up the shit he owns or does... is petty in my opinion.

[Blazar]

Not informed enough on the money side so won't address it.

As for "who lies about the size of their fucking penthouse"? - Do you think embellishing ones accomplishments, lifestyle, or money is solely done by Donald Trump?

I would direct you:

1. to examine your life - never embellished? Doubtful.
2. to examine every magazine, business, tv show, internet influencer, sports team, singer, actor, etc. - they've never embellished? Doubtful.
3. to examine society as a whole - we as a people have never embellished? Doubtful.

I can get going after possible bad business practices - but going after a guy who's led a pretty incredible life because he talks up the shit he owns or does... is petty in my opinion.

I have an oceanside penthouse to sell you in Montana if you think Donald Trump has actually accomplished anything legitimate that his daddy didn't give him. Get the fuck out of here with that shit... you're nothing but a fan boy. Just go read into his dealings with Deutsche Bank, and if you're still a fan boy, you're shit bag too in my book. You probably won't, because it would counter your narrative that "he's a great man" (so fucking laughable if you think he has led an incredible life, you need higher standards).

No, I don't embellish things about my life. When I was poor, I was poor. Now I'm better off, and I'm better off. I drive a nice car and own a house, but am in debt because of it and work my ass of to afford it. What is there to embellish? What good does lying about it do? You're most likely a narcissist too if you think this behavior is okay. I don't have time for people who lie, it's pointless and a waste of time.

[Tgo01]

I have an oceanside penthouse to sell you in Montana if you think Donald Trump has actually accomplished anything legitimate that his daddy didn't give him. Get the fuck out of here with that shit... you're nothing but a fan boy. Just go read into his dealings with Deutsche Bank, and if you're still a fan boy, you're shit bag too in my book. You probably won't, because it would counter your narrative that "he's a great man" (so fucking laughable if you think he has led an incredible life, you need higher standards).

No, I don't embellish things about my life. When I was poor, I was poor. Now I'm better off, and I'm better off. I drive a nice car and own a house, but am in debt because of it and work my ass of to afford it. What is there to embellish? What good does lying about it do? You're most likely a narcissist too if you think this behavior is okay. I don't have time for people who lie, it's pointless and a waste of time.

The butt hurt is strong with this one.

Be honest, is this you?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/022/054/Luke_Crywalker.jpg

[Blazar]

The butt hurt is strong with this one.

Be honest, is this you?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/022/054/Luke_Crywalker.jpg

Not butt hurt, just not a moronic fan boy who is in love with a narcissistic Cheeto. Big difference between the two that you clearly can't see through the spunk Trump unloaded in your eyes. Guess he really grabbed you by the pussy.

[Tgo01]

Not butt hurt, just not a moronic fan boy who is in love with a narcissistic Cheeto. Big difference between the two that you clearly can't see through the spunk Trump unloaded in your eyes. Guess he really grabbed you by the pussy.

"Not butt hurt!"

Then proceeds to prove how butt hurt he is.

[Shaps]

I have an oceanside penthouse to sell you in Montana if you think Donald Trump has actually accomplished anything legitimate that his daddy didn't give him. Get the fuck out of here with that shit... you're nothing but a fan boy. Just go read into his dealings with Deutsche Bank, and if you're still a fan boy, you're shit bag too in my book. You probably won't, because it would counter your narrative that "he's a great man" (so fucking laughable if you think he has led an incredible life, you need higher standards).

No, I don't embellish things about my life. When I was poor, I was poor. Now I'm better off, and I'm better off. I drive a nice car and own a house, but am in debt because of it and work my ass of to afford it. What is there to embellish? What good does lying about it do? You're most likely a narcissist too if you think this behavior is okay. I don't have time for people who lie, it's pointless and a waste of time.

Hey you're a DICK DICK DICK. I'm RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. I'm a SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK.

I'm pretty sure that's what you wrote as a reply.

You really didn't answer my questions or read what I wrote. And if this is your response (please read the lines above) - you really should re-examine a few things.

[Blazar]

Hey you're a DICK DICK DICK. I'm RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. I'm a SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK.

I'm pretty sure that's what you wrote as a reply.

You really didn't answer my questions or read what I wrote. And if this is your response (please read the lines above) - you really should re-examine a few things.

That wasn't my reply at all, but okay man, whatever you say.

I did definitely answer number 1. I don't embellish my own accomplishments, because there's you know, that pesky truth thing that gets in the way when you lie. Also, lying and embellishing aren't the same thing, just for the record... adding extra details is not the same as straight up saying something is bigger than it is by two or three times. Seriously, it's kind of amazing I'd have to explain that to you, I just laughed about it internally the first time around, it didn't really seem worth responding to. For number 2, I don't give a fuck about other people. Why are they relevant to this conversation exactly? Are any of the people you mentioned the President of the United States, someone who is actually supposed to set the example of how Americans should conduct themselves? Pathetic. And society... society doesn't embellish. Society is what it is, subject to the perceptions of the people, some of which are smart and some of which are not. What exactly would society "embellish" anyhow? What are you even trying to say here? That people in general lie? I'd certainly agree with you on that, but that is a shitty justification if I ever heard one.

Okay, so my opinion is that if you actually cared whether or not he was a "good man who led an amazing life" or whatever the fuck you said, you'd go research his business dealings. Because you don't care, you just assume he's "a great man" (or accept what people have told you but ignored what others have told you, selective bias??) and have never bothered to look into it then? Why did he inflate the size of his penthouse? Perhaps to inflate his net worth, in order to secure a loan for a property he couldn't legitimately afford? Isn't that "shady business dealings"? You see, lying and inflating your worth is just a symptom of a bigger problem. I haven't seen a legitimate defense for any of his shady business dealings. He just fucks people over and moves on. If that's what you consider a good man, you're a shit bag of a person.

The fact that you all are so eager to swallow up his lies like a cum guzzling slut is just amazing to me. Every time someone defends Trump, hope for humanity fades just a little bit more, because you people actually believe the shit he's sold you. What a bunch of suckers you are. I'll play the long game here, and in 10 or 20 years, once he's no longer President and sitting in jail because he's a scum bag piece of shit and we're trying to fix all of the damage he's done to this country, I'll wait to listen to your defenses. Although I hope it's actually shameful admittance that you were wrong, and you don't know how you couldn't see he was such a crooked shit bag that the only real position he should hold is head fertilizer of the lawn section. You people sadden me so very much.

It does amuse me though that you all think everyone is out to get Trump for no reason. It's hysterical. When has anyone ever been so polarizing in this country? Never? When has anyone ever been so pursued and vilified as Trump claims he is? When have there ever been so many "hoaxes"? Why do you think that is? You really think it's just because he's a successful business man, and because people are scared of him? Really? I just don't get it... the only explanation I have is Trump is an excellent used car salesman, and all of you are sucking on his giant sour lemons. I can't wait for reality to hit you in your fucking slack jawed mouths as hard as you beat Trump's meat.

[Shaps]

That wasn't my reply at all, but okay man, whatever you say.

I did definitely answer number 1. I don't embellish my own accomplishments, because there's you know, that pesky truth thing that gets in the way when you lie. Also, lying and embellishing aren't the same thing, just for the record... adding extra details is not the same as straight up saying something is bigger than it is by two or three times. Seriously, it's kind of amazing I'd have to explain that to you, I just laughed about it internally the first time around, it didn't really seem worth responding to. For number 2, I don't give a fuck about other people. Why are they relevant to this conversation exactly? Are any of the people you mentioned the President of the United States, someone who is actually supposed to set the example of how Americans should conduct themselves? Pathetic. And society... society doesn't embellish. Society is what it is, subject to the perceptions of the people, some of which are smart and some of which are not. What exactly would society "embellish" anyhow? What are you even trying to say here? That people in general lie? I'd certainly agree with you on that, but that is a shitty justification if I ever heard one.

Okay, so my opinion is that if you actually cared whether or not he was a "good man who led an amazing life" or whatever the fuck you said, you'd go research his business dealings. Because you don't care, you just assume he's "a great man" (or accept what people have told you but ignored what others have told you, selective bias??) and have never bothered to look into it then? Why did he inflate the size of his penthouse? Perhaps to inflate his net worth, in order to secure a loan for a property he couldn't legitimately afford? Isn't that "shady business dealings"? You see, lying and inflating your worth is just a symptom of a bigger problem. I haven't seen a legitimate defense for any of his shady business dealings. He just fucks people over and moves on. If that's what you consider a good man, you're a shit bag of a person.

The fact that you all are so eager to swallow up his lies like a cum guzzling slut is just amazing to me. Every time someone defends Trump, hope for humanity fades just a little bit more, because you people actually believe the shit he's sold you. What a bunch of suckers you are. I'll play the long game here, and in 10 or 20 years, once he's no longer President and sitting in jail because he's a scum bag piece of shit and we're trying to fix all of the damage he's done to this country, I'll wait to listen to your defenses. Although I hope it's actually shameful admittance that you were wrong, and you don't know how you couldn't see he was such a crooked shit bag that the only real position he should hold is head fertilizer of the lawn section. You people sadden me so very much.

It does amuse me though that you all think everyone is out to get Trump for no reason. It's hysterical. When has anyone ever been so polarizing in this country? Never? When has anyone ever been so pursued and vilified as Trump claims he is? When have there ever been so many "hoaxes"? Why do you think that is? You really think it's just because he's a successful business man, and because people are scared of him? Really? I just don't get it... the only explanation I have is Trump is an excellent used car salesman, and all of you are sucking on his giant sour lemons. I can't wait for reality to hit you in your fucking slack jawed mouths as hard as you beat Trump's meat.

MMM.. talk dirty to me. LOL.

You really don't see yourself do you?

Without replying to every single thing you said, the fact you read what I wrote and took that to mean he's a "great man", when I said nothing of the sort... says all that needs to be said.

You keep doing you though boo... Good to know we have a pure Saint on the forums who's led the most exemplary life that they've never faltered in any aspect it.

**Passes you a stone**

[Parkbandit]

The butt hurt is strong with this one.

Be honest, is this you?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/022/054/Luke_Crywalker.jpg

Hey now.. he's just like the modern day Paul Revere... warning us the Orange Man is bad.

[Parkbandit]

Not butt hurt, just not a moronic fan boy who is in love with a narcissistic Cheeto. Big difference between the two that you clearly can't see through the spunk Trump unloaded in your eyes. Guess he really grabbed you by the pussy.

It really is amazing how you instantly associate men with orgasms.

It's like you want to come out of the closet.. but just don't have the courage to do so.

[Methais]

Even if nobody says anything, you'll make 100 posts. May as well get started tgo. Nice font sizes btw. Nobody can read your shit, which is probably for the better.

As an actual point we got 39 days until the election. Most nominees take 50+. I guess she can be another Merrick Garland.

Get your mental illness in check loser.

In other news:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywjOntX_HPc

[Methais]

Not informed enough on the money side so won't address it.

As for "who lies about the size of their fucking penthouse"? - Do you think embellishing ones accomplishments, lifestyle, or money is solely done by Donald Trump?

I would direct you:

1. to examine your life - never embellished? Doubtful.
2. to examine every magazine, business, tv show, internet influencer, sports team, singer, actor, etc. - they've never embellished? Doubtful.
3. to examine society as a whole - we as a people have never embellished? Doubtful.

I can get going after possible bad business practices - but going after a guy who's led a pretty incredible life because he talks up the shit he owns or does... is petty in my opinion.

I wonder what time4fun/Andraste has to say about embellishing...

[Methais]

Not butt hurt, just not a moronic fan boy who is in love with a narcissistic Cheeto. Big difference between the two that you clearly can't see through the spunk Trump unloaded in your eyes. Guess he really grabbed you by the pussy.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f606d170587d8676a3726261a6a00efa/tenor.gif?itemid=7445527

[Tgo01]

Get your mental illness in check loser.

In other news:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywjOntX_HPc

Holy shit. And people say Trump says dumb shit.

[Methais]

Holy shit. And people say Trump says dumb shit.

The media will find a way to celebrate this.

I wonder how long before these tards start sporting Notorious R.B.G. shirts now, as if Kamala started a trend.

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit. And people say Trump says dumb shit.

So, do you think someone told her that Notorious BIG isn't the same as RBG yet?

Jesus. Why is she taking on this airhead type of persona? She used to sound relatively intelligent.. now it's like she's purposely sounding simple minded.

[Methais]

So, do you think someone told her that Notorious BIG isn't the same as RBG yet?

Jesus. Why is she taking on this airhead type of persona? She used to sound relatively intelligent.. now it's like she's purposely sounding simple minded.

She probably thinks she's relating to the people on the streets.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The 9th Circuit Court of appeals overruled RBG's death today.
..
..
..

Just kidding... BUT

Liberal media made it a news article.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/27/fact-check-only-satire-could-9th-circuit-overturn-ginsburgs-death/3548008001/

[Parkbandit]

Jesus... tried watching the ACB confirmation hearing today... holy fuck, half of these Senators are seriously stupid.. on both sides of the aisle.

Like how the fuck did Mazie Hirono get elected? She's reading her speech like she's reading a book to a 3rd grade class. I'm half expecting her to pick up a picture book and show it to everyone in the room.

And most of these Senators aren't even asking her questions... just talking to her. Fantastic job....

Judge (soon to be Justice) Barrett is making them look so fucking stupid.. especially about the law.

By all accounts, she's a very able jurist and should be confirmed.

[Neveragain]

Jesus... tried watching the ACB confirmation hearing today... holy fuck, half of these Senators are seriously stupid.. on both sides of the aisle.

Like how the fuck did Mazie Hirono get elected? She's reading her speech like she's reading a book to a 3rd grade class. I'm half expecting her to pick up a picture book and show it to everyone in the room.

And most of these Senators aren't even asking her questions... just talking to her. Fantastic job....

Judge (soon to be Justice) Barrett is making them look so fucking stupid.. especially about the law.

By all accounts, she's a very able jurist and should be confirmed.

It really isn't all that hard to run for office. Americans are pretty stupid culture wise, if you can just get people to remember your name when they enter the voting booth that's usually good enough.

[Methais]

Jesus... tried watching the ACB confirmation hearing today... holy fuck, half of these Senators are seriously stupid.. on both sides of the aisle.

Like how the fuck did Mazie Hirono get elected? She's reading her speech like she's reading a book to a 3rd grade class. I'm half expecting her to pick up a picture book and show it to everyone in the room.

And most of these Senators aren't even asking her questions... just talking to her. Fantastic job....

Judge (soon to be Justice) Barrett is making them look so fucking stupid.. especially about the law.

By all accounts, she's a very able jurist and should be confirmed.

Meanwhile, some people are outraged that she's only been a judge for 3 years, but get big mad when you point out that Kagan was a judge for 0 years before Obama nominated her. :lol:

https://i.imgur.com/zGdlokw.png (https://imgur.com/gallery/lCG1N3L)

[Tgo01]

Meanwhile, some people are outraged that she's only been a judge for 3 years, but get big mad when you point out that Kagan was a judge for 0 years before Obama nominated her. :lol:

https://i.imgur.com/zGdlokw.png (https://imgur.com/gallery/lCG1N3L)

So being a Dean of Harvard law is enough "experience" as a judge but 3 years experience as a judge isn't enough experience as a judge?

I can't even begin to try and wrap my mind around that logic.

[Parkbandit]

Senator Harris... who had to drop out of the Dem nomination because people didn't give a shit about her.. so Biden made her VP nomination...

"Do you believe Covid is contagious?"

"Do you believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer?"

"Do you believe in man made global climate change?"

ACB bitch slapped the dumb bitch down.

What a waste of space Senator Harris is.

[Methais]

So being a Dean of Harvard law is enough "experience" as a judge but 3 years experience as a judge isn't enough experience as a judge?

I can't even begin to try and wrap my mind around that logic.

Imgur has become a massive cesspool of butthurt this year. I can't wait until the election is over so it can consist of good memes and shit again.

[Parkbandit]

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-ruth-bader-ginsburg-amy-coney-barrett-82a02a618343c98b80ca2b6bf9eafe07

Confirmed: JUSTICE Amy Coney Barrett it is.

[Bhaalizmo]

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-ruth-bader-ginsburg-amy-coney-barrett-82a02a618343c98b80ca2b6bf9eafe07

Confirmed: JUSTICE Amy Coney Barrett it is.

Classy how you resurrected the RBG thread to celebrate. Cretin.

[Parkbandit]

Classy how you resurrected the RBG thread to celebrate. Cretin.

You sound triggered. You going to be ok?

I hope not.

[Parkbandit]

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5f9313e7faf1b82d3425a808/5:3/w_2000,h_1200,c_limit/amyconeybarrettabortion.jpg

[Parkbandit]

https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106754479-16032900502020-10-21t141515z_1537842284_rc22nj9jdqe5_rtrmadp_0_usa-court-barrett.jpeg?v=1603290079

[Tgo01]

Classy how you resurrected the RBG thread to celebrate. Cretin.

Well she replaced Ruth so it makes sense.

[Parkbandit]

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_44/3422959/201026-amy-coney-barrett-mn-0805_1432432d1599c7f2c827926878f73b77.fit-760w.JPG

[Parkbandit]

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/200924_vod_orig_amy_coney_barrettMIX_hpMain_16x9_9 92.jpg

[Parkbandit]

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/09/26/PIND/e8a52e77-a92c-4bb3-b960-e9f884a15fe1-AP20270767444494.jpg?width=660&height=441&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Classy how you resurrected the RBG thread to celebrate. Cretin.

Lulz, the butthurt is strong with this one.

[Methais]

Classy how you resurrected the RBG thread to celebrate. Cretin.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/1c/d0/461cd0801ad393cf2c65dbdbbaeae062.gif

[Parkbandit]

Lulz, the butthurt is strong with this one.

He's so upset.

[Neveragain]

3 SCJ's in one election cycle. That's hawt!

[Seran]

Court packing coming up

[Tgo01]

Court packing coming up

Gee I wonder how fast fascists, I mean Democrats, would call Republicans tyrants if they tried court packing if they win this upcoming election.

[~Rocktar~]

Court packing coming up

Only if Harris is elected with a Socialist Senate.

[Neveragain]

Court packing coming up

I don't think this works like you think it does. It's not nearly as easy as Democrats have made it to kill children.

[Neveragain]

Gee I wonder how fast fascists, I mean Democrats, would call Republicans tyrants if they tried court packing if they win this upcoming election.

Totally, I mean, if Trump wins can't we just add 3 more conservative justices to the court or...5 more...etc.?

[~Rocktar~]

Totally, I mean, if Trump wins can't we just add 3 more conservative justices to the court or...5 more...etc.?

Up to the max prescribed from the Constitution of 19.

[caelric]

Up to the max prescribed from the Constitution of 19.

I don't believe the US Constitution itself proscribes a certain amount of SCOTUS Justices. I believe the only limit is what was in the Judiciary Act of 1869 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869), which could be easily changed with a new law, if the Democrats held the Senate, the House, and the President, which is why there has been talk of packing the court in response to the appointment of ACB.

Personally, I think it's bullshit, but we'll see what happens if Trump doesn't win.

[Gelston]

Up to the max prescribed from the Constitution of 19.

The Constitution has no max prescribed number. If it did, we'd be at it.

[Methais]

Last night a black Supreme Court Justice swore in a Woman to the Supreme Court, and democrats are enraged.

This is correct.

[Seran]

First step of fixing the Supreme Court will be implementing term limits of 10-15 years maximum. Removing Thomas and Breyer.

Second step would be to increase the number of Justices to 10, ensuring that any issue being heard by the Supreme Court would be so compelling as to require a 60% majority of the vote, lest the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court be upheld.

[Tgo01]

First step of fixing the Supreme Court will be implementing term limits of 10-15 years maximum. Removing Thomas and Breyer.

Second step would be to increase the number of Justices to 10, ensuring that any issue being heard by the Supreme Court would be so compelling as to require a 60% majority of the vote, lest the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court be upheld.

Suddenly the supreme court needs to be "fixed." Democrats aren't just poor losers, they are straight up fascists. Look at this shit.

[~Rocktar~]

First step of fixing the Supreme Court will be implementing term limits of 10-15 years maximum. Removing Thomas and Breyer.

Second step would be to increase the number of Justices to 10, ensuring that any issue being heard by the Supreme Court would be so compelling as to require a 60% majority of the vote, lest the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court be upheld.

You are a moron, the Supreme Court is working as intended. Lifetime appointment to assure that it changes slowly and judges don't feel pressured due to terms or elections, 9 members so that when filled properly, there is never a tie. Please go take a civic class, one written like 20-30 years ago so it actually covers civics and not your hurt ass feelers.

[~Rocktar~]

Suddenly the supreme court needs to be "fixed." Democrats aren't just poor losers, they are straight up fascists. Look at this shit.

The only things that need "fixed" are Seran and T4Andraste but I think they may have already reproduced.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Repubs should pack the court to like 50 justices!

[Seran]

You are a moron, the Supreme Court is working as intended. Lifetime appointment to assure that it changes slowly and judges don't feel pressured due to terms or elections, 9 members so that when filled properly, there is never a tie. Please go take a civic class, one written like 20-30 years ago so it actually covers civics and not your hurt ass feelers.

Lifetime appointments ensure that what changes do occur are made by those without any understanding of the will of the people and that demented old jurists are allowed to decompose on the bench. Term limits doesn't deny experience from the bench, it guarantees a strong, mobile court with modern education and experience. Not doddering nobodies still concerned with leeches and Indian raids

[Tgo01]

Lifetime appointments ensure that what changes do occur are made by those without any understanding of the will of the people and that demented old jurists are allowed to decompose on the bench. Term limits doesn't deny experience from the bench, it guarantees a strong, mobile court with modern education and experience. Not doddering nobodies still concerned with leeches and Indian raids

It's beyond hilarious watching "progressives" bitch and moan about "demented old jurists" AFTER RBG died. Where was all this talk about term limits when she should have been off the bench during Trump's first year in office? Oh right, couldn't bitch about Republicans "stealing" a seat from Democrats then.

[Stolis]

Lifetime appointments ensure that what changes do occur are made by those without any understanding of the will of the people and that demented old jurists are allowed to decompose on the bench. Term limits doesn't deny experience from the bench, it guarantees a strong, mobile court with modern education and experience. Not doddering nobodies still concerned with leeches and Indian raids

Cool, so we'll implement term limits on Supreme Court judges when they implement term limits on Congress. Cause you know, we want to guarantee that strong Congress with modern education and experience and all that. Those demented old Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen really know what they're doing up there in DC! :goodluck:

[Seran]

Cool, so we'll implement term limits on Supreme Court judges when they implement term limits on Congress. Cause you know, we want to guarantee that strong Congress with modern education and experience and all that. Those demented old Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen really know what they're doing up there in DC! :goodluck:

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right? Term limits on Supreme Court Justices would not preclude them from being confirmed a second time.

[~Rocktar~]

Lifetime appointments ensure that what changes do occur are made by those without any understanding of the will of the people and that demented old jurists are allowed to decompose on the bench. Term limits doesn't deny experience from the bench, it guarantees a strong, mobile court with modern education and experience. Not doddering nobodies still concerned with leeches and Indian raids

Please, for the love of all things, take a fucking civics class. There is a reason they are lifetime appointments. I get it, you and all the other crying Leftists hate it and are all ass hurt over it. Tough. Fuck off.

[Tgo01]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right?

The fuck you talking about?

[Ashlander]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right? Term limits on Supreme Court Justices would not preclude them from being confirmed a second time.

Do you think the period of time they serve between elections is what people are talking about when they call for term limits?

[Seran]

Do you think the period of time they serve between elections is what people are talking about when they call for term limits?

Do I hope that the board understands that there is a massive difference between a lifetime appointment and member of a representative democracy that must be periodically reelected, yes.

[~Rocktar~]

Do I hope that the board understands that there is a massive difference between a lifetime appointment and member of a representative REPUBLIC that must be periodically reelected, yes.

Gods you are a moron.

https://i.imgur.com/EUnFNgQ.gif

[Neveragain]

Lifetime appointments ensure that what changes do occur are made by those without any understanding of the will of the people and that demented old jurists are allowed to decompose on the bench. Term limits doesn't deny experience from the bench, it guarantees a strong, mobile court with modern education and experience. Not doddering nobodies still concerned with leeches and Indian raids

I know, it's about time that Democrats progress past the stone age practice of human sacrifice.

[caelric]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right?

Just stop. You don't even know what you're talking about, and are just making yourself look as fucktarded as time4andraste.

[Parkbandit]

First step of fixing the Supreme Court will be implementing term limits of 10-15 years maximum. Removing Thomas and Breyer.

Second step would be to increase the number of Justices to 10, ensuring that any issue being heard by the Supreme Court would be so compelling as to require a 60% majority of the vote, lest the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court be upheld.

First of all, if they implemented term limits, no Justice would be removed by them since when they were confirmed, it was for lifetime.

Second of all, you need to have an odd number of Justices on the SCOTUS so there wouldn't be ties.

Third of all, you really are so upset still that you believe now the SCOTUS needs to be "fixed". No thanks.

[Parkbandit]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right? Term limits on Supreme Court Justices would not preclude them from being confirmed a second time.

Jesus.. not sure if you are just trolling or you really are this stupid.

You do realize that "term limits" doesn't mean the length of time between elections... right?

[Gelston]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right?

No there aren't. I wish there was, but you could serve as many terms as you get elected for.

[Ashlander]

Do I hope that the board understands that there is a massive difference between a lifetime appointment and member of a representative democracy that must be periodically reelected, yes.

So no you don't know what term limits are.

[Seran]

First of all, if they implemented term limits, no Justice would be removed by them since when they were confirmed, it was for lifetime.

Second of all, you need to have an odd number of Justices on the SCOTUS so there wouldn't be ties.

Third of all, you really are so upset still that you believe now the SCOTUS needs to be "fixed". No thanks.

Because the length of appointment was established by an act of Congress, a second act of Congress is all that is needed to retroactively implement term limits. Just as Congress has changed the jurisdiction, number of justices and appointment standards for the Supreme Court on half a dozen occasions already.

Second, there's absolutely no reason why an even number of Justices should be required. The appellate courts rulings should stand only when there is a compelling constitutional violation, so much so that six or more Justices on a ten member court would rule to overturn. Rulings shouldn't be solely contingent on which president was lucky enough to appoint more partisan ideologues.

[Tgo01]

Because the length of appointment was established by an act of Congress, a second act of Congress is all that is needed to retroactively implement term limits.

Lifetime appointments come from the constitution and it would require a constitutional amendment to change it.

Seriously do you know a single fucking damn thing of which you talk about?

[Seran]

Lifetime appointments come from the constitution and it would require a constitutional amendment to change it.

Seriously do you know a single fucking damn thing of which you talk about?

No, there's nothing in the Article III about the length of service of Supreme Court Justices.

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

While you're welcome to interpret however you'd like, constitutional scholars have gone a long way debunking the myth of constitutionally granted lifetime appointments.

[drauz]

Lifetime appointments come from the constitution and it would require a constitutional amendment to change it.

Seriously do you know a single fucking damn thing of which you talk about?

Actually it wouldn't, the lifetime appointment comes from the line federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it.

All it would take is a different interpretation as to what that means.

I don't think it should be changed as it has worked for a long time as is, but it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to do.

[Stolis]

You know that there are term limits for Congress, right? Term limits on Supreme Court Justices would not preclude them from being confirmed a second time.

Wow dude, you have the ability to vote and you have no idea how fucking long Congressmen/Congress women and Senators are allowed to be voted into office. Jesus Christ man.

Here's just a simple example.. Pelosi is serving her now 17th term as of 2019.

Joe Biden started in Jan 3, 1973 as a Senator and stopped when he became VP back in 2009. But, you know. Term limits.

[caelric]

Joe Biden started in Jan 3, 1973 as a Senator and stopped when he became VP back in 2009. But, you know. Term limits.

But this time, as President, he will fix all the problems, right? Right?

[Stolis]

But this time, as President, he will fix all the problems, right? Right?

We can believe him this time. This time he means it, you guys

[Tgo01]

No, there's nothing in the Article III about the length of service of Supreme Court Justices.

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

While you're welcome to interpret however you'd like, constitutional scholars have gone a long way debunking the myth of constitutionally granted lifetime appointments.

So it comes from the constitution and not from Congress like you said.

[Tgo01]

Actually it wouldn't, the lifetime appointment comes from the line federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it.

Yes which is why it would require an amendment. How is “old age” bad behavior? This is like saying “we are redefining what shall not be infringed means to get rid of that pesky second amendment.”

It’s literally the work of dictatorships for one branch of government to dictate who can and cannot hold office of another branch, which is why 2 term limits for president was an amendment.

[drauz]

Yes which is why it would require an amendment. How is “old age” bad behavior? This is like saying “we are redefining what shall not be infringed means to get rid of that pesky second amendment.”

It’s literally the work of dictatorships for one branch of government to dictate who can and cannot hold office of another branch, which is why 2 term limits for president was an amendment.

Requiring people who don't want to fight for the gov't is also something that dictators do, and yet we have the draft.

It wouldn't take an amendment but theres like a .00000001% chance something other than amendment would succeed, so while not technically impossible it almost is. It would eventually be the Supreme Court that decides the interpretation and I doubt they would take their own jobs away.

[Alfster]

Dictators are also big fans of placing family in high ranking positions.

[Parkbandit]

Requiring people who don't want to fight for the gov't is also something that dictators do, and yet we have the draft.

It wouldn't take an amendment but theres like a .00000001% chance something other than amendment would succeed, so while not technically impossible it almost is. It would eventually be the Supreme Court that decides the interpretation and I doubt they would take their own jobs away.

It doesn't take an Amendment to the Constitution to change the Constitution?

Good to know.

[Parkbandit]

Dictators are also big fans of placing family in high ranking positions.

11 other Presidents placed family members in high ranking positions... were they all Dictators?

[Tgo01]

Dictators are also big fans of placing family in high ranking positions.

Today I learned an advisor is a high ranking position. That’s practically the same as being put in charge of the military!

[Seran]

So it comes from the constitution and not from Congress like you said.

Check your reading comprehension. I said that the constitution doesn't say anything about it being a lifetime term. Thus it's the responsibility of Congress to define

[drauz]

It doesn't take an Amendment to the Constitution to change the Constitution?

Good to know.

Again, try to keep up with conversation. I'm sure you'll figure out what we're talking about eventually.

[Tgo01]

Check your reading comprehension. I said that the constitution doesn't say anything about it being a lifetime term.

Except that it does. The constitution states clear as day that judges hold their offices during good behavior. Thus you would need to be the most warped Democrat to have ever lived to qualify "being old" as "bad behavior." Fuck off and crack open a book already.

[Tgo01]

It really is funny how Democrats were talking about donating kidneys and blood to Ginsburg to keep her alive as long as possible, but the minute the dies it's "OMG! Term limits! It's super serious!" How quickly the sore losers turn into dictator wannabes.

[drauz]

Except that it does. The constitution states clear as day that judges hold their offices during good behavior. Thus you would need to be the most warped Democrat to have ever lived to qualify "being old" as "bad behavior." Fuck off and crack open a book already.

It doesn't define what good behavior is though, its the same with impeachment. It's whatever the governing body decides it is.

[Tgo01]

It doesn't define what good behavior is though, its the same with impeachment. It's whatever the governing body decides it is.

You’re right, Congress decides what good behavior is. If you’re on board with “old age” being bad behavior then you might be a far left cretin.

Not only that but it would have to be on a case by case basis with impeachment. Congress can’t just decide every judge is guilty of bad behavior.

[Gelston]

It doesn't define what good behavior is though, its the same with impeachment. It's whatever the governing body decides it is.

And the Governing body, since the Constitution was written, has decided Federal Judges serve a lifetime appointment.

[drauz]

And the Governing body, since the Constitution was written, has decided Federal Judges serve a lifetime appointment.

Which could change at any moment because it's an unspoken rule.

I'm not saying it's likely to change or that I want it to, only that it could in theory.

[Gelston]

Which could change at any moment because it's an unspoken law.

I'm not saying it's likely to change or that I want it to, only that it could in theory.

I mean, it'd have to go through the Supreme Court which will probably rule against it. The very writers of the Constitution were the Governing body that put them in for life. It is pretty fucking obvious that was their intention since, they, you know, practiced it.

[drauz]

I mean, it'd have to go through the Supreme Court which will probably rule against it. The very writers of the Constitution were the Governing body that put them in for life. It is pretty fucking obvious that was their intention since, they, you know, practiced it.

Exactly, thats why a few posts back I said there was a .00000000001% chance it would succeed.

[Gelston]

Exactly, thats why a few posts back I said there was a .00000000001% chance it would succeed.

Because for life is exactly what is intended by the Constitution. They'd have specified a length if they meant otherwise, as they do for every other office.

[Parkbandit]

Which could change at any moment because it's an unspoken rule.

I'm not saying it's likely to change or that I want it to, only that it could in theory.

It's not an unspoken rule though, given that the only thing that can end a Justice's tenure would be bad behavior.

I realize you probably won't understand that.. but this isn't the first time you were lost in a simple conversation.

[Methais]

Supreme Court would be so compelling as to require a 60% majority of the vote, lest the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court be upheld.

If you took 3 seconds to do basic math, you'd realize that a 5-4 vote is still a 55% majority. Retard.

[Bhaalizmo]

If you took 3 seconds to do basic math, you'd realize that a 5-4 vote is still a 55% majority. Retard.


https://youtu.be/WkZ5e94QnWk