Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

Sorry I can't debate you, the liberals here censor debates or arguments or disagreements about anything involving the alphabet organization and it's members. I will debate you on hate. You make a bold statement claiming conservatives hate Americans, using generalizations that democrats and liberals use to create dissent and hatred themselves. Does that mean you clearly hate a lot of Americans?

Wow. That has to be just about the worst attempt at whataboutism I've seen.

But I'll bite. No, I don't hate a lot of Americans. But even if I did, it would be based on their choice to blindly adhere to a political affiliation that is rooted in bigotry and hatred and is quite literally counterproductive. This, as opposed to hating people simply because of the color of their skin, their gender identity, their sexual preference, or their faith, for example.

You know... fundamental civil rights stuff.

[Dontrike]

I like how you seem to think so little of Texas and Florida, I am not surprised it's all liberals can talk about.

Might be because those two states keep fucking things up repeatedly. Between Texas screwing up the border and killing soldiers and Florida trying to go back in time and stop children from learning math or sex education because they're afraid of the word vagina.

They could always stop doing that shit if they want to stop the insults. All your post says is you're fine with soldiers dying and businesses being hurt from Texas and you want children to be dumb.

Thanks for the paint troll, I don't report stuff like that, I'm not the censorship type like most of the denizens here.

Neat

You seem to think that the fact that I want states to have more power to govern themselves then the federal government shows exactly how liberal you are.

"I hate that you want to treat gays and women as people" isn't the winning mic drop you think it is. Why do you hate certain Americans? Why are you okay with certain states stripping rights away?

Notice the federal government had to be dragged out of covid masking by states, even though the democratic leadership was blatantly hypocritically flaunting not wearing masks. I am sure you were all upset about it because you think the federal government needs to decide everything. Slavery is not a current topic or valid comparison, but of course it is for you. You probably believe in reparations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH You think having to put masks on at Walmart so less people die is slavery AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

- - - Updated - - -

Broken record here. Just because I vote against Biden does not mean I support Trump.

You're right, what shows your support of Trump has been your constant support of Trump for 6 years. We've played this game before and there's plenty of evidence.

Please link me the evidence where he led the armed invasion, I must have missed the pictures of him leading people in to the capitol. it's always whataboutism with you guys when you have no argument. broken record on repeat.

*Points to Jan 6 and slaps button* That was easy

[postman1782]

You really think a disinformation board will stand up to a law suit about free speech? Most people do not want to get rid of the constitution....well Republicans and Independents. They support laws based on constitutional interpretation, not political interpretations. Roe vs Wade has always been a political interpretation at the federal level. It should have never been taken away from the states. This has been said for years.

It's like gay marriage. I have no problem if anyone wants to marry anyone else, as a 2 time divorced father I would tell them not to, but hey to each their own. It was at a state level and, for example, California voted it down. Twice. Then the Federal courts said nope, you got to have it. I do not mind that they have to have it, I mind that they took the power away from the states.

LOL, you think them censoring "articles" that are bullshit, and proven bullshit, will win lawsuits?

And no, Republicans aren't passing laws that are based on constitutional interpretation. And having Roe being a federal law, prevents states from suing their constituents when they go to other states to get an abortion, like they are now.

And the Equal Protection Clause says that gay people can get married, just like straight people. Just like the 14th amendment gives women that get abortions the right to fucking privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry I can't debate you, the liberals here censor debates or arguments or disagreements about anything involving the alphabet organization and it's members. I will debate you on hate. You make a bold statement claiming conservatives hate Americans, using generalizations that democrats and liberals use to create dissent and hatred themselves. Does that mean you clearly hate a lot of Americans?

No, you can't debate, because you have no fucking facts.

[Endus]

But why? What specifically about that issue makes you think it's a state "issue" vs. a right to be protected?

This is big, "I'm not in favor of slavery, but I fully support the southern states rights to literally own human beings because it should be up to states to decide." energy.

It's absolutely baffling to me how right-wingers pull the worst fucking takes of the Confederacy and continue to present them openly as if they're in any way logically defensible. The whole "States' rights" thing should've died with the Confederacy for the same reason "Blood and Soil" should've died with the Nazis in '45.

[Lenonis]

I mind that they took the power away from the states.

Two questions I hope you will answer honestly:
1) How do you feel about the states that are pushing to make activity that occurs in other states illegal?
2) How do you feel about conservatives who say they will push to make it illegal federally via Congress?

[Fugus]

Two questions I hope you will answer honestly:
1) How do you feel about the states that are pushing to make activity that occurs in other states illegal?
2) How do you feel about conservatives who say they will push to make it illegal federally via Congress?

I caught TexasRules and his alt DocSavageFan tag teaming on the forums of the Hill before and trust me, you won't get honesty out of him, you are asking for blood from a rock on that.

He isn't posting to debate, he is posting because he is fishing for responses for fun and this place is fish in a barrel. I've tested that myself.

I'm to the point where I will respond to them too at this point occasionally, but never expect anything real from them because if they were trying to get real, they wouldn't be posting on their squatting grounds, which is what this place is to them.

[Breccia]

Biden lifts Trump's tariff on Ukrainian steel.

[Lenonis]

I caught TexasRules and his alt DocSavageFan tag teaming on the forums of the Hill before and trust me, you won't get honesty out of him, you are asking for blood from a rock on that.

He isn't posting to debate, he is posting because he is fishing for responses for fun and this place is fish in a barrel. I've tested that myself.

I'm to the point where I will respond to them too at this point occasionally, but never expect anything real from them because if they were trying to get real, they wouldn't be posting on their squatting grounds, which is what this place is to them.

The individual in question aside I am honestly curious about the boundaries of "states rights" and (assuming a good faith holding of that principle) how recent events intersect with that.

Because in theory a believer that states rights should reign supreme could support item #1 - that although it is a state infringing on another state it could be argued that is the state's right to do so.

But in no way would a states rights supporter support item #2 - and if they do support that then it's just hypocrisy - they aren't a supporter of state's rights they are just anti-abortion.

It's going to be interesting to see how conservatives react to a scenario where people just need to go to another state to get legal abortions even after the court issues its ruling. And how far they will be willing to toss aside their so-called principles to get to a fully outlawed abortion stance in the US.

[Poopymonster]

The individual in question aside I am honestly curious about the boundaries of "states rights" and (assuming a good faith holding of that principle) how recent events intersect with that.

Because in theory a believer that states rights should reign supreme could support item #1 - that although it is a state infringing on another state it could be argued that is the state's right to do so.

But in no way would a states rights supporter support item #2 - and if they do support that then it's just hypocrisy - they aren't a supporter of state's rights they are just anti-abortion.

It's going to be interesting to see how conservatives react to a scenario where people just need to go to another state to get legal abortions even after the court issues its ruling. And how far they will be willing to toss aside their so-called principles to get to a fully outlawed abortion stance in the US.

They are a fan of "Their state's rights" meaning Texas or whatever other inbred backwater Florida hellhole can Y'all Queda all over states.

[Captain N]

They are a fan of "Their state's rights" meaning Texas or whatever other inbred backwater Florida hellhole can Y'all Queda all over states.

So they want a federal government based on their "State's Rights".

[Zan15]

Broken record here. Just because I vote against Biden does not mean I support Trump. Please link me the evidence where he led the armed invasion, I must have missed the pictures of him leading people in to the capitol. it's always whataboutism with you guys when you have no argument. broken record on repeat.

By this logic the president isn't the head of the military because he isn't leading the military onto the battle field with a weapon in hand!!! ?? ?

[Edge-]

By this logic the president isn't the head of the military because he isn't leading the military onto the battle field with a weapon in hand!!! ?? ?

All those presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have been a bunch of limp wristed cucks!

Edit: Minus Dwight, at least. We'll count him, though I don't think he was charging into battle in WWII in the front lines (though I don't know enough about him to know this for certain). He was no nutjob like Patton.

[Zan15]

It's like gay marriage. I have no problem if anyone wants to marry anyone else, as a 2 time divorced father I would tell them not to, but hey to each their own. It was at a state level and, for example, California voted it down. Twice. Then the Federal courts said nope, you got to have it. I do not mind that they have to have it, I mind that they took the power away from the states.

we'd still have separate schools and water fountains if fundamental rights were left up to induvial states. Not to mention women would not be voting or be allowed to own land.

Just to mention a few

[Edge-]

we'd still have separate schools and water fountains if fundamental rights were left up to induvial states. Not to mention women would not be voting or be allowed to own land.

Just to mention a few

Yo, many folks in the Republican party would view this as a feature, not a bug.

[Fugus]

The individual in question aside I am honestly curious about the boundaries of "states rights" and (assuming a good faith holding of that principle) how recent events intersect with that.

Because in theory a believer that states rights should reign supreme could support item #1 - that although it is a state infringing on another state it could be argued that is the state's right to do so.

But in no way would a states rights supporter support item #2 - and if they do support that then it's just hypocrisy - they aren't a supporter of state's rights they are just anti-abortion.

It's going to be interesting to see how conservatives react to a scenario where people just need to go to another state to get legal abortions even after the court issues its ruling. And how far they will be willing to toss aside their so-called principles to get to a fully outlawed abortion stance in the US.

From personal experience, their overall mindset is “the ends justify the means”. Their stance is whatever they have to pretend it is to get to where they want with no regards for consistency or consequence.

Also, McConnell has already said something about banning it at a federal level after the courts stop protecting it. So you can expect their views to magically change to whatever gets them there.

[TexasRules]

Still not finding anything credible to this, just the predictable conservative sites treating what appears to be a small group trying to make some noise using hyperbolic claims super duper seriously. If this was legit, we'd see more reporting on it. If it was legit, we'd have more than a site with some since-deleted Google Maps showing evidence.

And again, I'm fairly skeptical that 6 Supreme Court Justices live within walking distances of each other. I'm sure they all live close to work and all, but protesting 6 spots in a day is either gonna result in very short protests so you can move to the next spot, or like 5 people showing up at each home.

Mediaite claims Google took it down, but I'll wait for a statement first.

Again, at worst we have a tiny protest group trying to make some noise with some dishonestly bold claims (on the internet?! NO WAY!), and conservative media blowing it way out of proportion to continue fueling the outrage machine

Well it was taken down and changed, I provided proof of that. I can post more links but you'll whine that fox news and others are not your democrat talking points websites. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it did not happen. No idea why you troll with this shit after I provide evidence.... evidence means nothing because democrat talking point website doesn't have it.

Here's more links for doubter who can only believe democrat talking point websites please, doubt these too :

https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-ta...072833509.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...protests-chur/

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/ame...court-justices

https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/suprem...wade-protests/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...s-for-protests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ces-homes.html

[Edge-]

Well it was taken down and changed, I provided proof of that. I can post more links but you'll whine that fox news and others are not your democrat talking points websites. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it did not happen. No idea why you troll with this shit after I provide evidence.... evidence means nothing because democrat talking point website doesn't have it.

Here's more links for doubter who can only believe democrat talking point websites please, doubt these too :

https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-ta...072833509.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...protests-chur/

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/ame...court-justices

https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/suprem...wade-protests/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...s-for-protests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ces-homes.html

Eyyy, looks like people (not necessarily this group) did find the publicly available addresses for some SCOTUS Justices and are peacefully protesting on public streets.

The First Amendment is great, isn't it? I don't know why conservatives are having so many problems with people planning to, and engaged in, peaceful First Amendment protected protests.

What's a "democratic talking points website" btw? Genuinely curious, since you seem to be more "in the know" about this than I am. I was just looking for anything that literally wasn't right wing media covering it. Like, The Blaze ain't exactly the paragon of journalistic integrity and factual reporting.

[PhaelixWW]

What's a "democratic talking points website" btw?

Well, see, it's...

I was just looking for anything that literally wasn't right wing media covering it.

...yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Anything that doesn't have an outrageous right-wing bias and/or a tendency to outright lie about things... is a "democratic talking points website". Otherwise known as regular, fact-driven news websites.

You know... ones that don't have to stand up in court and say: "But we're just entertainment! Nobody takes us seriously anyway!"

[Dontrike]

Well it was taken down and changed, I provided proof of that. I can post more links but you'll whine that fox news and others are not your democrat talking points websites. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it did not happen. No idea why you troll with this shit after I provide evidence.... evidence means nothing because democrat talking point website doesn't have it.

Here's more links for doubter who can only believe democrat talking point websites please, doubt these too :

https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-ta...072833509.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...protests-chur/

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/ame...court-justices

https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/suprem...wade-protests/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...s-for-protests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ces-homes.html

Looks like your average political discourse to me. Why are SCOTUS judges so afraid of people using their first amendment rights? Here's another, why are you upset about that? You were cheering last year for the "political discourse" that occurred on Jan 6 so what's the problem now?

[postman1782]

Well it was taken down and changed, I provided proof of that. I can post more links but you'll whine that fox news and others are not your democrat talking points websites. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it did not happen. No idea why you troll with this shit after I provide evidence.... evidence means nothing because democrat talking point website doesn't have it.

Here's more links for doubter who can only believe democrat talking point websites please, doubt these too :

https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-ta...072833509.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...protests-chur/

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/ame...court-justices

https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/suprem...wade-protests/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...s-for-protests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ces-homes.html

Funny, I find no violence or anything illegal.