I didn’t ask what you would do, I asked what the party leaders say. What the Republican plan is. The party platform, if you will. I guess you need simpler questions, but I don’t think that’s possible.

1) that question still wasn’t answered, liar. Typical, you can’t answer, so you just change the question.
2) yes, that’s a simple, but totally incorrect and idiotic answer. His policies haven’t been changed for the most part, despite what OAN claims….and it’s not what Republican leadership says is their plan.
3) the answer is they have no plan, they don’t say they intend to reimplement Trump’s disasters…they say they don’t intend to state a plan, no platform at all, just oppose the liberals. That’s not a plan, it’s the opposition to any plan.

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

I saw this whole movie and its not bad.

The books are great.

You have to believe in something to have a goal in life but you need to pick well.

Justice and mercy (opposites in a way, no?) are IMHO good things to hope for, hoping to prove election fraud is like praying your neighbors goat should die. Morals and politics are a personal choice. Morals are what you hope to be and politics are what you hope the world around you will be.

Pratchett does a good job explaining to kids that its how you change yourself is more important than how you change the world.

The universe offers entropy.

Am I the only one who thinks the exact opposite of what these guys are saying? I'd prefer to just blow into something if it's a requirement.

I've had too many bad experiences with automatic systems to trust their reliability.

Nice, way to not answer the question, as usual. Instead you pretend Rosenbalm followed and menaced Rittenhouse, even though every shred of evidence including the location of the shooting and statement from Rittenhouse say the opposite. It’s ok, we know you think it’s ok to hunt certain groups of people. You don’t have to say it publicly.

Rittenhouse first chased/followed him for blocks from the parking lot he “guarded”, armed, brandishing his weapon and pointing it at Rosenbaum. When Rosenbaum stopped retreating, Rittenhouse shot him in the head.

In his testimony, McGinniss said that as Rosenbaum lunged, Rittenhouse “kind of dodged around” with his weapon and then leveled the gun and fired.

Binger repeatedly tried to get McGinniss to say Rosenbaum was not “lunging” but “falling” when he was shot, as McGinniss said in a media interview days after the shooting,
McGinniss said: “He was lunging, falling. I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon.”
So, his unbiased testimony is the unarmed victim was lunging for the weapon after being shot in the head….not falling….or they’re the same thing.

That's a gem in this segment of the show.

Of all the things I don't agree with Maher (recently of the Mask Mandate, sooooooooo misinformed and/or self-centered, he's part of the prolonged problem), I must say, his fixation on not cancelling anyone and while urging people not being snowflakes are right stands for me. As much as a "political opposite" some people are to me, I'm actually far more interested in the reasons behind why they take those stands, whether they care to explain themselves or not (because, come on, we KNOW American culture breeds goats and they can only parrot what their political/religious/news/social media overlords tell them without understanding the ulterior motives behind their words & actions). I've long given up expecting one half of the population to be able to articulate thoughts.

His shows are still able (willing?) to invite "both sides" to the table. For that, his shows are worth watching.

Hilarious….you need to ask why someone doesn’t like nazis?…but who said to kill them all? Wasn’t me.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that being a mine defuser is a death sentence, and they all died? Is that what happened in the movie? This was a German plan to have them earn their freedom and not starve to death in POW camps.

I can’t abide Nazis. If you feel the urge to defend nazis, that’s on you, buddy.

So, you’re just trolling then….or are you so dense you don’t see a difference between captive invading murderous soldiers who are around 16 and who were committing a genocide and non combatant children who are 10 and not indoctrinated into violent expansionist racist and murderous fascism? Nazi youth aren’t cub scouts….Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a historically accurate documentary.

If we had not abandoned Vietnam and our soldiers were captured instead, our soldiers there should have been forced to demine Vietnam and Cambodia, including the 15 year olds (the idea that non combatant children be sent there is brain numbingly ludicrous)(Dan Bullock (December 21, 1953 – June 7, 1969) was a United States Marine and the youngest U.S. serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War, dying at the age of 15. Yes, we use youth soldiers too.).

The mines we left all over those countries have killed and maimed numerous generations, tens of thousands, and continue to do so to this day, and if I’m not mistaken, many POWs did clear mines during captivity. Leaving an active minefield on foreign soil should be a war crime if it isn’t already. It’s definitely targeting the civilian population once the war is over.

Wow. Remind me to never be around your family then. Everyone in my family knew it was wrong to invade and murder our neighbors because we like their stuff and land, and wrong to try to exterminate an entire ethnicity by the time we were 6. If you didn’t know that by 14, you have serious issues. Nazis exterminated the mentally feeble.

The young republicans aren’t a murderous group exterminating Jews, blacks, gays, and anyone not Republican…nazis were. If the young republicans were a murderous group like the nazis, any member should get the death penalty, even the murdering racist 15 year olds….young adults kill just as thoroughly as 35 year olds, their victims were just as terrified and are now just as dead.

The nazis didn’t have a tiny majority through which they controlled German politics, they had a monopoly. Another false equivelent. Christ on a cracker. If Trump had won in 2020, and used the Jan 6 attack on congress as a false pretext to outlaw any opposition to Republicans, taking over completely through violence and intimidation and held and consolidated power for nearly a decade you would be almost there. Holy Ghost on toast!

Are you shitting me. You equate these things, refusing vaccines, creating bad state laws disenfranchising voters, to accepting and participating in genocide. Just fucking wow, buddy. Stretch much? Almighty God on cod!

Old enough to murder, and you do it, you’re an adult. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re 9. If you know what your doing when you put that gun to a Jews head and say “your children are next, you fucking kike” or a similar slur then pull the trigger, you just became an adult and eligible for the death penalty. We try 12 year olds as adults, but you would shield murderous hitler youth, many of whom turned in their own parents for liquidation, from responsibility from committing genocide among other disgusting atrocities. These kids aren’t Jojo Rabbit. Mother Mary with her cherry!

Besides…as I informed you, it was the German commander who had the idea and gave the order. At least get mad at the right nation.

You said “ but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.”
1) you have lost your ever loving mind if you think a little danger is as bad as anything the nazis could ever do….you simply have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The atrocities the nazis committed make clearing a minefield they layed look like a nice summer job with a friendly and generous boss by comparison. Try abasination, sewing twins together, seeing how long people can live without skin, raping people to death, melting people alive in acids, starving babies, stomping babies, gassing entire populations, etc. you really climbed so far up on that high horse you can’t see reality anymore. Sweet Zombie Jesus!
2) it was something the nazis did. This was a nazi plan from a nazi officer. Get it straight. The nazis did this, not the allies. That’s what I mean by learn the history instead of getting mad over a story….you are upset over fiction….and defending nazis in your outrage over nothing.

You have a problem. Your position is that nazis shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions…apparently going so far as excusing college age men for fascist, racist genocide because you know some people that age who made some mistakes. (I say that proves my point that just as being older doesn’t mean making better decisions, being younger doesn’t mean you can’t make good decisions. I learned to not hurt other people except in defense in preschool.)

I say if you pick up that gun and march, you’re a soldier and responsible for your actions. If you kill, you’re a killer, no matter your age.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

Bob,

The Electoral College is the opposite of what you're saying you want: a fair vote. Aren't you for "one person, one equal vote"?

"That is what happens to conservatives in major democrat cities during the counting. "

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here? It can be read a lot of different ways. If you'd like to clarify, I'd appreciate it.

But you aren't doing that.

First y'all insist the count be stopped before mail in votes are counted. Then you insist on a recount, then another, then an audit, then another, then when all counts, recounts, and audits go against you, you insist on a purely partisan fake audit done by the actual architects of the "voter fraud" fraud.
It is not a forensic audit, you don't use insanely partisan companies built on the big lie with zero election experience using only dihard Trumpster morons, also with no experience or knowledge of how the process even works, to do any legitimate audit....you do that to create dishonest propaganda with no value...and to destroy those counties abilities to hold elections by invalidating all their election equipment and attempting to gain access to every piece of government held data on every person in the county, voters or not.

It's the exact opposite of looking for the truth, it's blatantly creating falsehoods and false questions to further the lie they created.
Democrats were fine with recounts where it was close, and audits by reputable agencies with bipartisan participation and oversight, they all proved the counts were good and matched the physical records, despite the lies you've been fed by Trump and Giuliani. They don't support the obvious circus of insanity that is the cyberninja "audit", it's stupidity in the extreme to think anyone over 65 IQ would.

Do you have more fake election fraud claims you need to have explained as to why they were tossed out of court, or were 60+ enough to prove there's nothing there, nada, zip, zilch, nunca, nothing burger royal with cheese. There weren't fraudulent / illegal votes in the double digits, and the few there were went for Trump. Litigated, prosecuted, verified. Try again, that lie died in December.
We've had multiple true counts, why can't you accept a true count?

A few Republicans committing fraud that got caught, no Democrats, and not enough votes to change a single district if they were combined. Not a single Republican that won says THEIR election was won due to fraudulent ballots, and they would have to be if the fraud you and Trump claim happened did happen. THAT'S the truth, and I've embraced it since Nov 4th.

Why do you fear the truth, little Bobby? I know you find it all so scawey, but don't fear, adults are here to hold your hand through it. Now tell daddy where the monster is and I'll show you there's nothing there.

Bravery by denial is cowardice. Cowboy up.

Let me Google that for you.

Cowardice is a trait wherein excessive fear prevents an individual from taking a risk or facing danger. It is the opposite of courage. As a label, "cowardice" indicates a failure of character in the face of a challenge. One who succumbs to cowardice is known as a coward. Wikipedia

You're the guy that says, "Do what you want with the women and children, just leave me alone."

She's facing the monster that you run from.

She is the one that would pull someone out of burning car while you watch from the sidelines.

I'm the opposite, in a sense. I couldn't really get hooked on Futurama. I watched pretty much all the episodes and enjoyed them, but didn't really get attached to any of the characters. However, Rick and Morty keeps me coming back because of the irreverence and the way nothing matters.

Rick and Morty is a middle finger to the universe, to causality, to the notion of object permanence, that suddenly jumps back to remind you of the endless and inescapable human suffering in the middle of it all.

Then again, it's been a fucking rough year. Wubba Lubba Dub Dub!

This is literally the difference between Europeans and Americans:

Europeans: Tell an uncomfortable truth and work from that.
Americans: Tell an outright fucking lie and then act like it's the truth. When the bill for that crap comes due, pretend you did and said the exact opposite of what actually happened and scream down whoever calls bullshit on you.

I do not share your opinion. Provided Bob isn't in-fact a Russian troll, he's still an American.

Pop quiz, which is the best political party?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Trick question, the best party in America is America.

“We’re so glad to see so many of you lovely people here tonight. And we would especially like to welcome all the representatives of Illinois’s law enforcement community that have chosen to join us here in the Palace Hotel Ballroom at this time. We certainly hope you all enjoy the show. And remember, people, that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive and survive, there’re still some things that makes us all the same. You. Me. Them. Everybody. Everybody.”






That said,

They'll get their own misery when they feel the policy they helped create begin to affect them. Trust me, it doesn't need help. My dad is scrambling trying to save for his retirement at 65 and scoffs at the idea of the stimulus checks he got, refuses to cash the "biden bucks"

Let me tell you. Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerburg? They don't give a shit about moral quandaries when offered free money, they take it, happily.
If you're pulling down millions every year and cook the books a bit, that's "smart." Walk in to a social security office with a baby on your arm a day early, that's "criminal," (almost like stealing).

Do that enough + a bunch of VERY-MUCH-NOT billionaires voting for it and u have the republican party.


-----------------

I also don't care for the malformed logic they practice. Another republican acquaintance of mine called me a "segregationist" because I said trans-athletes should be able to play on the team of their self identified sex.

Whether you agree with me on that or not, me saying that they SHOULD play on an integrated team does NOT make me a segregationist, unless you completely redefine the word.

------------------




Finally, I do agree there is some room for some anger. I don't like it when the GOP or their sycophants go on a "Let's take rights away from someone today, AS A TEAM!"

When the message is the OPPOSITE of "There are still some things that make us all the same," it's infuriating. Because if it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

Take what's happening with their complaints of "cancel culture"
Coca Cola, Disney, etc etc private companies and bakeries

The new and improved supreme court helped establish that private businesses can discriminate against you based on a genuine philosophical or religious belief. Bakery vs the gay couple "TAKE THAT, GAYS!!!"

They didn't realize that that meant ALL businesses could now do that. But again, if it happens to them, it can happen to you.

Bob here is like one of the fans throwing garbage on the field when Jackie Robinson gets up to bat. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET YOUR OWN NEGRO -ERR TRANS LEAGUE?"


He truly doesn't know he's being manipulated.



p.s. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

Now, it's easy to point out "LOOK!!! no no no it's not!!! see! it says right here, they CANT just do it if you're not this specific baker." That's not stopping this guy from 6 days ago

https://w ww.whas11.co (link too long) m/article/news/investigations/focus/radcliff-kentucky-tax-preparer-refusing-business-to-lgbtq-couples/417-c2575ded-feed-45d8-b6f7-49016ec9eba3

made a tiny^ https://tinyurl.com/myd5ubrc

Absolutely, that's just, like, my opinion, man. It holds no sway over others, who cares what a newt thinks?

I don't think it's a certainty that the GHSB would have prevented all deaths, or even avoided the pandemic, just likely, but that's enough to assign blame imo, and usually under the law too. There's zero chance he would be prosecuted, so it's all academic.

You have a link for the Lancet study? I would be interested to find what they include as "Trump's policies" and what isn't considered. Edit:Derp....I scrolled up and see you already posted it, thanks.
Even 40% is over 200000 deaths in his lap. That's 200000 more than are acceptable.

You could say that about climate change, and in a rational world it would be true, but that <3% are used to justify nearly 50% of policy and nearly all opposition to progress, so yeah, it does still matter.

I respect you too, and you're welcome to your opinion, but when you say I can't lay blame where I think it belongs, I feel obligated to explain how I came to my opinion.

Absolutely on Bob. It's infantile and ignorant at best, and a cynical lie aimed at the gullible.