Biden - Approval

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-12-2022, 02:22 PM)ATOTR Wrote: Can you imagine logging into a NFL team message board daily, for years, and never once discussing a topic related to that NFL team.

Just posting non-stop in the sub, sub political forum over and over, with the same 11 ppl.

That seems like sociopathic tendencies and OCD mixed together.  It is actually hilarious to think about.

Dear god, notice me senpai!

[Dill]

(10-12-2022, 02:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: I blame those that still think January 6 was legitimate and/or peaceful and/or totally not Trump's fault. Of course it comes up again and again if folk keep making these claims again and again.

And because keeping/losing democracy is the #1 issue in U.S. politics.

Most every other political event is meaningful in terms of how or whether
it affects the likelihood of loss. 

So it's hardly surprising that a thread on Biden's chances of re-election 
gets some post about the consequences of a Biden loss to the guy
who staged a coup. 

I suppose if one doesn't get that, then the introduction of Jan.6 on different
threads can seem like introducing an unrelated subject, someone riding a
personal hobby horse again.

[*Nately120*]

(10-12-2022, 02:25 PM)ATOTR Wrote: Back to the topic.

Biden is so universally disliked, he will not be running again.

So, who will carry the mantle and take his place?  Will Kamala be VP again on a ticket?

A lot can happen in 2 years, but right now I'd say Newsome or Butigeg could likely overtake Biden/Harris.  The 2024 election depends on Trump though, because he's a political wild card.  He could run, or he could miss the nomination and then run as a 3rd party and go all Ross Perot on the election and provide an inroad for the any democrat by splitting the republican vote.

Trump could legit throw the GOP into utter ruin on the national level if he wants.

But 2024 could be Biden or even Hillary vs Trump again in a repeat of the "We don't like either candidate" matchup

OR 

It could be Newsome vs DeSantis in a "neither of these states represent us" matchup that Trump could throw into complete turmoil.  Buckle up, I guess.

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate that. I doubt I'll be posting much, if at all, in this forum from now on.  I'm not dumping on the mods, I've moderated before and it's a thankless job that is always accused of bias (hmm, sounds like another job I have), but there are people here who get away with talking massive shit and then run to the mods when they get a bit of shit thrown back at them.  That coupled with the ever growing train wreck that is working in this profession in Southern California really dampens my enthusiasm for posting here.  I do miss engaging with you, Bel, and several others, so I'll probably pop in from time to time.

I understand, and I don't want to talk like a wise guy about moderating as well. I will share my observation that when you got into an argument with say Dino (or later Dill or whoever), I often thought you were taking the insulting talk a tad too far when I agreed with him on the issue, and I often thought he took it too far when I agreed with you. Perception is a weird thing at times, and hard to be objective about when involved personally. I feel that might have happened at times regarding your complaints. You gave and you took in and in many cases I'd say on an equal level.

That being said, this is not an universal assessment. Folks told you to go kill some babies and innocent folk and then some, which I deem intolerable. I'd probably leave too if folks constantly told me to kill some Jews as an Austrian Nazi whenever they disagreed with my stance on something. So yeah, some people sure took it where you'd never take it. Hence I understand.

[ATOTR]

(10-12-2022, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I understand, and I don't want to talk like a wise guy about moderating as well. I will share my observation that when you got into an argument with say Dino (or later Dill or whoever), I often thought you were taking the insulting talk a tad too far when I agreed with him on the issue, and I often thought he took it too far when I agreed with you. Perception is a weird thing at times, and hard to be objective about when involved personally. I feel that might have happened at times regarding your complaints. You gave and you took in and in many cases I'd say on an equal level.

That being said, this is not an universal assessment. Folks told you to go kill some babies and innocent folk and then some, which I deem intolerable. I'd probably leave too if folks constantly told me to kill some Jews as an Austrian Nazi whenever they disagreed with my stance on something. So yeah, some people sure took it where you'd never take it. Hence I understand.

LOL - yeah this place seems like it's for the sane-minded. 

I am out!   Who would want to interact with psychopaths like this?   good lord, what a cesspool 

[BFritz21]

(10-12-2022, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: And Putin said there's just a military special operation in Ukraine and that he is all for peace.

So no one should ever lie about that one too and call it a war or an act of aggression. It's not! He SAID it!


--- And even if you don't get it through your skull: Trump knew those people were radical and armed and still urged them to go to the Capitol. He then saw the violence unfold on TV and kept edging them on, calling Pence out explicitly. He did not call for them to stop the violence for hours, even though he knew they'd listen to him. You think that is the behaviour of a man that values peacefulness above all else?

How did Trump know they were armed? Wasn't it only 6 people? Did they wave their guns in the air or did they talk to him beforehand?

Why didn't they use their weapons?

Even if he did know they were armed, HE TOLD THEM TO DO GO PEACEFULLY!

Also, define radical and explain how he knew that they were radical.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-12-2022, 02:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm pretty sure the sociopath is the guy who laughs at people he thinks are mentally ill.

By the way, if you want to take a break from looking down on us for not engaging with conservatives you can respond to my initial post that I made in an effort to engage in a non "circle jerk with liberals" manner with you.

Hey circle jerk is my line. Also pretty sure Dill gets some kind of kickbacks for all this work they do. Someone’s got to be feeding them all them links.

[*Nately120*]

(10-12-2022, 02:39 PM)ATOTR Wrote: LOL - yeah this place seems like it's for the sane-minded. 

I am out!   Who would want to interact with psychopaths like this?   good lord, what a cesspool 

Come on, you ignored both of my semi-thoughtful responses to your posts.  Seems like you want to declare that no one wants to have a real conversation with you so you can tap out.

Ah well, back to circle jerkin'

[Dill]

(10-12-2022, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I understand, and I don't want to talk like a wise guy about moderating as well. I will share my observation that when you got into an argument with say Dino (or later Dill or whoever), I often thought you were taking the insulting talk a tad too far when I agreed with him on the issue, and I often thought he took it too far when I agreed with you. Perception is a weird thing at times, and hard to be objective about when involved personally. I feel that might have happened at times regarding your complaints. You gave and you took in and in many cases I'd say on an equal level.

That being said, this is not an universal assessment. Folks told you to go kill some babies and innocent folk and then some, which I deem intolerable. I'd probably leave too if folks constantly told me to kill some Jews as an Austrian Nazi whenever they disagreed with my stance on something. So yeah, some people sure took it where you'd never take it. Hence I understand.

Since I don't log on to this message board daily to discuss politics with the same 11 people (which would be a good thing, in any case, not a bad one), I'm guessing I missed a real donnybrook.  Someone told SSF to kill babies?

The dill code is still never to level personal attacks against other forum members, even if one is oneself the object of such attacks. 
In the past I have asked moderators NOT to suspend or ban anyone for personal attacks against me, preferring to work it out
with the attacker my own way. 

I've had the most heated discussions with SSF, but will miss his participation if he strays away now. The burden of defending the 2A will fall mostly on Bels.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-12-2022, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I've had the most heated discussions with SSF, but will miss his participation he strays away now. The burden of defending the 2A will
fall mostly on Bels.

I appreciate that, and honestly I think you got blowback from my dealing with others, and we got off on the wrong foot with the Islam discussions and never really got over it.  As for the 2A, the SCOTUS took care of that one for us.  


I will say one thing on that topic, that is also in line with the thread topic.  The SCOTUS has clearly, and unequivocally stated, that an "assault weapon" ban would be unconstitutional on its face.  How is Biden not betraying his oath of office by publicly stating he is bound and determined to pass a law that has already been declared unconstitutional?  

https://www.newsweek.com/not-joke-biden-insists-hell-reinstate-ban-assault-weapons-1750979

[Dill]

(10-12-2022, 02:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Come on, you ignored both of my semi-thoughtful responses to your posts.  Seems like you want to declare that no one wants to have a real conversation with you so you can tap out.

Ah well, back to circle jerkin'

Not "seems."  You, like Hollo, were blown off for making points the OP couldn't refute or discuss knowlegeably.

And we've seen this before. 

Hunter Biden and Hillary are devastating topics inside the bubble,
but bubble busters outside.

So a little projection about circle jerkin', then back to safety.

[StoneTheCrow]

***Drops in to whisper***
(The current mouthpiece of the administration, WH Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is an election denier)

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How did Trump know they were armed?

Because he was told.
And here's his response: "I don’t ***** care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me."

It's all in the hearings.

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Wasn't it only 6 people?

More like about 2.000

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Did they wave their guns in the air or did they talk to him beforehand?

His security knew that they were armed, probably by observation and/or by being informed about the preparations, and again told him about that.

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Why didn't they use their weapons?

I don't know what went on in their heads. Many sure had them. 75 people got indicted for carrying weapons inside the Capitol, including guns, stun guns, knives, batons, baseball bats, axes, chemical sprays and riot gear. And they did use some of them, for example the chemical agents they sprayed over Capitol police or the helmets and vests they wore. They slit the tyres of a police car. 138 police officers got injured, some quite severe. One was hit in the head with a metal pole and died because of the severe brain trauma he endured...

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Even if he did know they were armed, HE TOLD THEM TO DO GO PEACEFULLY!

I addressed that already, but maybe repetition is useful. If you believe in the power of these words, you also have to believe that Russia's war in Ukraine is in fact a special operation and a mission of peace. Putin told us so, so it has to be so.

(10-12-2022, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, define radical and explain how he knew that.

There were Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Threepercenters, and Trump was made aware of that. These are radical groups, or do you wish to disagree with that.

[*Nately120*]

Not to go back down the jan 6 road, but it's funny that Giuliani called for TRIAL BY COMBAT and then later said getting a sarcastic slap on the back was like getting hit by a boulder.

I get that he wouldn't be in said COMBAT, but geez.  I'm used to politicians being full of crap, but we're taking it to new levels here.

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:39 PM)ATOTR Wrote: LOL - yeah this place seems like it's for the sane-minded. 

I am out!   Who would want to interact with psychopaths like this?   good lord, what a cesspool 

We will miss your endearing personality very much.

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Since I don't log on to this message board daily to discuss politics with the same 11 people (which would be a good thing, in any case, not a bad one), I'm guessing I missed a real donnybrook.  Someone told SSF to kill babies?

Well, to be more precise. I think I remember he was accused of being in active cohouts with babykillers. In another instance, he was directly told to go shoot some innocent folk. Because, that's what police strives for, hahahoho. I tried and failed to find the threads/posts.

I urged the person in question to rethink and apologize, but he refused to. Leading to me putting him on my personal blacklist.

[BFritz21]

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Because he was told.
And here's his response: "I don’t ***** care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me."

It's all in the hearings.

So he didn't care that people had guns in HIS rally?

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: More like about 2.000

2,000 people had guns?

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: His security knew that they were armed, probably by observation and/or by being informed about the preparations, and again told him about

How did his security know they were armed? 

Again, were they waving them around?

Were they going around in a crowd of over a thousand people and asking them to lift their shirts to see if they had a gun tucked in their belt?

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollered Wrote: I don't know what went on in their heads. Many sure had them. 75 people got indicted for carrying weapons inside the Capitol, including guns, stun guns, knives, batons, baseball bats, axes, chemical sprays and riot gear. And they did use some of them, for example the chemical agents they sprayed over Capitol police or the helmets and vests they wore. They slit the tyres of a police car. 138 police officers got injured, some quite severe. One was hit in the head with a metal pole and died because of the severe brain trauma he endured... 

They used them in the Capitol Building?

6 people were killed. It seems like there should be a lot more if they were armed and looking to kill people.  

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I addressed that already, but maybe repetition is useful. If you believe in the power of these words, you also have to believe that Russia's war in Ukraine is in fact a special operation and a mission of peace. Putin told us so, so it has to be so.

You're really trying to equate Trump's words with Putin's?

Also, one is about war and the other is about a protest.

You're reaching.

(10-12-2022, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: There were Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Threepercenters, and Trump was made aware of that. These are radical groups, or do you wish to disagree with that.

Did they make up a majority of the crowd? How many were there?

Why didn't those extremist groups do much damage or cause more violence once in the Capitol?

[KillerGoose]

(10-12-2022, 02:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear god, notice me senpai!

Glad to see you back. I had noticed an absence recently, this place wasn't as active without you. Hope all is well. 

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So he didn't care that people had guns in HIS rally?

He set them up to march to the Capitol, in fact telling them he will accompany them.

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 2,000 people had guns?

Oh. That I don't know. There were 85 indictments over carrying weapons in the Capitol. How many there actually were, beats me. Way more than the 6 people you assumed, that's for sure.
But I got your comment wrong too. About 2.000 were the number of people going to the Capitol, around 800 entered, possibly not all of them were armed.

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How did his security know they were armed? 

Again, were they waving them around?

Were they going around in a crowd of over a thousand people and asking them to lift their shirts to see if they had a gun tucked in their belt?

I feel stupid to even address that. First off, the assessment was made and it was correct. How they knew, that I don't know, I just know that security told Trump so and were correct. Maybe they saw the weapons, maybe they knew from reading the internet and the preparations for the rally debated there and realized people will bring their arms. What gives? Trump was told they were armed, and they indeed were. What is there to wonder about?

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: They used them in the Capitol Building?

Just look at the footage and listen to the witnesses instead of asking me questions you should have answered to yourself.
Eg yeah police was sprayed with chemical agents. Bad enough if it happens outside the building, but things like that apparently also happened inside.

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 6 people were killed. It seems like there should be a lot more if they were armed and looking to kill people.

That is a weird point to make. Only 6 casualties and barely over 100 injured police officers means folks were not really out for violence? How twisted is that logic.

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're really trying to equate Trump's words with Putin's?

I rather compare you taking Trump at his word to some doofus that takes Putin at his word.
If your assessment were true and Trump really was all against any violence and valued peacefulness above all else, then as soon as the pictures from the Capitol reached him on his TV he would have needed to immediately turn to FOX or Twitter and urge the rioters to stop it right now. That's what wanting peaceful protests would have demanded of him.
But Trump did nothing of that sort. He sat there for hours, watched it all unfold, the breaking of the Capitol, smashing of windows, chemical agents and everything. And he did not say a word. Well, to be precise, he said that Pence betrayed all of them, pouring gasoline in the unfolding fire. That is not the act of a person that wants to avoid violence. And hence, when he said "peaceful", he was lying. As proven by his deeds.

(10-12-2022, 03:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Did they make up a majority of the crowd? How many were there?

Why didn't those extremist groups do much damage or cause more violence once in the Capitol?

I don't know. You keeep making this weird point of how there wasn't enough violence to call the riot violent and not enough radical groups to call it radical. Apparently it sounds good to you, to me it sounds asinine. There were confederate flags all over the place, also swastikas and whatnot, not to mention the visible outbursts of violence. If you engage in a protest displaying those symbols and engaging in injuring over 100 police officers, you probaly are radical too.

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say one thing on that topic, that is also in line with the thread topic.  The SCOTUS has clearly, and unequivocally stated, that an "assault weapon" ban would be unconstitutional on its face.  How is Biden not betraying his oath of office by publicly stating he is bound and determined to pass a law that has already been declared unconstitutional?  

https://www.newsweek.com/not-joke-biden-insists-hell-reinstate-ban-assault-weapons-1750979

Wasn't there a ban o semiautomatics in place until 2004? [I just realize it's in the article] I ask for that could mean that such a law being unconstitutional might be a temporary assessment instead of one set in stone. This is what I'd say, the SC is not so much a guardian for the constituton these days as it is a political branch of government, as political as the other two really. Five liberal judges might very well have a different take an such a law.

Sure I'd also say the constitution is not to be treated like Christians treat the Bible. It is open to interpretation, to a certain bending, and in the end also for being amended. In that sense alone, I think it's fine to demand laws that might not be in line with the constitution in its current form and its current interpretation by a conservative SC. Constitutions and/or interpretations can legitimately change, if the public support is there and the ballot box shows as much for example.