In PA I was surprised at all the Republicans against Dr. Oz in the primary.
The Official Thread Dedicated to "Trump Winning"
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,518
- Reaction score
- 17,537
- Points
- 113
I'm not. It seems that conservatives want Trump clones. If you don't fit that to a tee, Conservatives don't want you, and to me that is a problem. What should be a layup in November is going to made difficult because too many Republicans want Trump at every level of government, rather than voting for the person that would support Trump 95% of the time. They are going to give the democrats wins over a miniscule amount of disagreement. When they lose, they'll be too stupid to figure out why.
Plus, in my opinion, too many Republicans still think that Democrats are just good people with bad ideas. They believe there is still a middle ground. There isn't a Democrat alive that thinks that. They will disagree with their candidate 98% of the time and NEVER pull the lever for a Republican. November is not a sure thing in my opinion.
I agree with this to a point, but Im not sure why you dont think there are not any democrats looking for a middle ground. There are not many in politics, but Mancin / Gabbard come to mind. I know a couple democrats who have voted republican. One guy was a pretty heavy democrat, but actually voted for Trump x2. On the flip side do you think any republicans are going to pull the lever for a democrat especially if they are a progressive? Both sides are moving to the extremes. The Dr. Oz thing is a bit concerning but if you have Dr. Oz vs a liberal I dont think any republicans are going to vote for the liberal especially if the economy continues as is.
I’ll comment on this moronic post if you give Steeltime his $50. It’s the right thing to do.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,795
- Reaction score
- 7,131
- Points
- 113
Well, that and the political ads showed him as a closet liberal with little snippets of him supporting trans-gender and gun control that turned many against him. I didn't even vote in the Primary I was so disgusted with all of the candidates. I didn't like a single one.
Yinz know I'm hard right. Dr. Oz spoke at an event I attended and he's been on Jim Quinn's radio show a few times. I voted for him in the primary and have no problem at all voting for him in November.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,518
- Reaction score
- 17,537
- Points
- 113
That number seems kind of high. But then, 20% of republicans support criminal charges against Trump, so maybe not.
Maybe, but polls usually reflect the results desired by those taking the polls.
Assuming that my vote will mean anything, I have a question. With dozens of candidates running for any particular office, where is a good source of unbiased information to make and intelligent decision? Growing tired of all the I'm great, that other person is the devil sound bites. Got anything Burgundy?
I think some view Trump as some sort of messiah and would believe or do anything he said. I think Trump was basking in his glory a bit on Jan 6th instead of focusing on stopping what was going on. I don't think you can pin the riot on him or charge him with anything though. If that's the case then multiple politicians should be charged with the BLM violence. People are responsible for their own actions
Jim Quinn at www.warroom.com. Subscription is $4.99/mo.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,635
- Reaction score
- 30,067
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
If the welcher had paid me just $2.50 per month, he would have paid off the debt.
Of if he paid me 50 cents for every co-worker that caught Covid, he would have paid the debt off long ago.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 113
Good golly gosh, I hope so!
We're not a damn 'democracy'. We've never been a 'democracy'. And I hope we never lapse into that abyss. We are a Republic. "democracy' is mob rule. Witness the French Revolution. 'democracy is the shiny object that would be tyrants lure the stupid by. Witness the Soviet Union. They were a 'democracy'. How could even the dimmest of dim not see the relationship between the aforementioned tyrant states and the bolshevik wannabees trying to destroy this Republic? Their MOs are identical. The rhetoric is eerily similar.
ALL Media use the key phrase "our democracy". It's hard coded into our psyches at this point.
I'm old enough to have experienced 'Civics' classes. We learned how this Republic operated, and our responsibilities with that Republic. A Republic is a construct of laws. It is only as strong as the citizens' willingness to obey those laws. Our forebears bequeathed us a Republic because they understood human nature and correctly prescribed the 'Republic' as the only viable solution. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution actually guarantees a Republican form of gubment to every state. Ponder that.
The dims (the 'our democracy' people) have been working to destroy the Republic since their inception. The whole 'insurrection' bullshit? Recall that they fired on Ft. Sumter. They seceded. Why? because some rich dims had an issue with the Republicans' having an issue with them owning slaves. They started the shitstorm. 650,000 dead soldiers, God knows how many dead civilians and untold wounded later, we reached an 'armistice'.
Union leadership wanted the Union to heal. So they went easy. 6 days after the armistice was signed, a dim assassinated President Lincoln. 6 days. Had the VP who succeeded the slain President not been southern, there might have been a decidedly different outcome. Sane leadership would have summarily executed ALL dim leadership down to the precinct level and most CSA leadership. We probably wouldn't have entered WWI. There might not have been a WWII, Korea, Viet Nam. And we certainly would be living in this shitstorm we find ourselves in. And black people wouldn't be walking around thinking dims are their friends and Republicans their enemies. Ponder that.
Tell you what though, if I’m a state representative or senator when Roe v. Wade gets overturned I’m saying put it on the ballot. Gonna take a bunch of heat for that either way. Let the peoples vote on it.
Kari Lake - SAVAGE. Holy ****.
Excellent piece on Alito destroying the dissenting judges on concealed carry.
townhall.com
Justice Alito's response to the dissenters.
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.
The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.
And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.
I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.
Alito Takes a Blow Torch to Liberal Justices' Dissent
On Thursday morning the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down restrictive "may issue" concealed carry laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas
townhall.com
Justice Alito's response to the dissenters.
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.
The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.
And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.
I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.
Not sure that she'll get the nomination, there's a ton of $$$ being spent by Karrin Taylor Robson.
But one thing is for sure, the Dim candidate, Katie Hobbs, is a flat out socialist. The choice will be very clear, I only hope AZ isn't too stupid to see it.
Britney Griner sits in Russian jail while Biden is in office. Remember those two ncaa basketball players that got caught stealing sunglasses in china? The Chinese wanted to break their legs and cripple them. Trump brought them home safely. And their dad trashed Trump after his kids were home safe.
Where is Peng Shuai?
Where is Peng Shuai?
Similar threads
