Tate Reeves calling a special session…

[Boom Boom]

Is that one little story supposed to tell us how awesome USPS is?

bc it’s not.

It's supposed to help illustrate that not all mail routes are the same, and entities with different commitments to different routes are thus not the same either.

 

[Boom Boom]

Definitely differences but I can assure you they are more efficient than usps.

The two things aren’t really fundamentally different though.

The fundamentals are they are all in the business of delivering things.

More efficient right up until you want something delivered to somewhere thats less profitable than their other routes. USPS gets to set itself up to be more efficient for profitable routes because it has no obligation to serve less profitable routes. It's easier to be efficient when you can ignore the hard parts of a service.

 

[Boom Boom]

He was joking. Doesn’t surprise me you didn’t see that though.

If he's joking, then he's saying despite the mountain of evidence of who Trump is, he'll just never believe it. That doesn't make it better.

 

[Boom Boom]

@paindonthurt and his narrow minded view of things demonstrates why I don't really like hardcore Rankin County type conservatives, and it makes you start thinking you have more in common with some liberals. Then you read stuff like this and realize how deranged they are:


Where is the middle ground? Lord have mercy is there one single lib out there that can admit that Trump is not Satan himself? About the only thing in the fascist meaning that can be applied to Trump is that he is in fact a US nationalist. I don't see why that's a bad quality for a president, personally.

The middle ground is for people to admit he's far away from just a "US nationalist". The middle ground starts with an honest admission of Trumps flaws and what that means for the office of the Presidency.

Thus, the problem is not on my end.

 

[Boom Boom]

I guess I really do have to use sarcasterisks with every joke. I thought it was obvious that I think only an imbecile would believe all those things.

That's my fault. I've got to know the audience better.

Then the problem is you refuse to believe anything that you don't want to believe, because the evidence of who Trump is is so voluminous that it's not debatable. Thus, there's no point in debating with people who will never believe the evidence. Thus, my post.

 

[mstateglfr]

Where is the middle ground? Lord have mercy is there one single lib out there that can admit that Trump is not Satan himself? About the only thing in the fascist meaning that can be applied to Trump is that he is in fact a US nationalist. I don't see why that's a bad quality for a president, personally.

I dont think Trump is Satan in the flesh. I do think Trump is dangerous to the country for many reasons, but mostly because I dont think he actually gives a 17 about policies or positions and will say or do whatever he thinks will make him popular and powerful. He is a showman and has shown he lacks ethics and morals. And to be clear, I am not saying he lacks the ethics and morals that I align with- I think he straight up outright lacks them at all. His willingness to say whatever the 17 he thinks in the moment, regardless of if it totally conflicts with stuff he said before, highlights that lack of ethics and morals.

As for why being a Nationalist is bad...yeah in a very general sense, you want a president who has a nationalistic perspective. That is a very general sense though, and in practice, I cant think of anyone that would identify as being a Nationalist who isnt also heavily viewed as an extremist and dangerous to groups in the country.

 

[ckDOG]

@paindonthurt and his narrow minded view of things demonstrates why I don't really like hardcore Rankin County type conservatives, and it makes you start thinking you have more in common with some liberals. Then you read stuff like this and realize how deranged they are:


Where is the middle ground? Lord have mercy is there one single lib out there that can admit that Trump is not Satan himself? About the only thing in the fascist meaning that can be applied to Trump is that he is in fact a US nationalist. I don't see why that's a bad quality for a president, personally.

The desire for him to be a strong man dictator / authoritarian / fascist is all there. He has told us. Does our republic have the checks and balances to prevent what he wants? To date? Yes. Another run at it? Who knows? Just off the top of my head, here is what he has shown us and told us he wants:

1) at worst planning J6 violence to reverse an election outcome. At best rationalizing it and being sympathetic with those who did

2) stating he'd act as a dictator (was he joking?)

3) praise and admiration for global strongmen - China, Russia, NK, Turkey. He has a man crush on those who have no real accountability and rule with an iron fist

4) lobbying the Supreme Court rule that presidents have total and absolute immunity even BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICE. Says police should be treated the same.

5) Sating unfriendly media outlets should be silenced

6) stating immigrants are destroying the blood of our country

7) stating he intends to carry out retribution against political opponents

I could go on. Are all these jokes or him not being serious? Him just trolling the libs? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not comfortable with the risk.

My opinion is these are all disqualifying attitudes for our highest office. Again, maybe he's talking noise in his bombastic but typically ineffective way? 90% of what comes out of his mouth are fart noises, rambling, BS, self promotion, and these days self-preservation (honestly he and Biden would offer a good battle for most senile/unintelligible). Might just be more of the same crap talk to a base that loves a nonsense **** talker. But what if he's serious and the courts sign off on his immunity (or Biden's if it is ruled before election). We won't be able to sit here and question why it happened. It will have happened in plain sight after he told us it's what he wanted.

Anyhow...we've let the presidency/executive obtain far too much power over the decades while Congress sits back and is ineffective and does nothing about it regardless of who is in office and who runs Congress. I'm not sure Congress has even wanted to do its job in the modern era. Fundraise, media appearance, reelected, repeat.

I gave myself a silver lining during the first Trump term and thought for a minute we might be headed down the road where the executive branch gets rightly kneecapped a bit and Congress takes on more of its constitutional role in lawmaking and authorization of what agencies can and can't do. That was wishful thinking. We are on the cusp of turning it all over to POTUS. Because of a cult of personality that wants to argue not that he's innocent of breaking laws, but that he's above it. We've gone bonkers.

We have (had?) 3 branches for a reason. I don't feel confident we will be able to turn back if we go over that total immunity ledge. Total immunity civilian that is commander in chief of the world's largest military is a bad bad bad idea for any president regardless of last name or party. How do you check that? Elections? Those wouldn't have to happen any longer. Civilian rebellion? Good luck against said military. Hell, half this country may just want one man to have that kind of power at this point and we deserve it. Sad times for the constitution.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I dont think Trump is Satan in the flesh. I do think Trump is dangerous to the country for many reasons, but mostly because I dont think he actually gives a 17 about policies or positions and will say or do whatever he thinks will make him popular and powerful. He is a showman and has shown he lacks ethics and morals. And to be clear, I am not saying he lacks the ethics and morals that I align with- I think he straight up outright lacks them at all. His willingness to say whatever the 17 he thinks in the moment, regardless of if it totally conflicts with stuff he said before, highlights that lack of ethics and morals.

As for why being a Nationalist is bad...yeah in a very general sense, you want a president who has a nationalistic perspective. That is a very general sense though, and in practice, I cant think of anyone that would identify as being a Nationalist who isnt also heavily viewed as an extremist and dangerous to groups in the country.

In other words, he's a mirror image of the American public.

But in his defense, at least he is strong. Every candidate we put forth who is ethical or moral, seems to be a pushover. You almost have to be an arsehole to stand up to a shltty public these days.

So you could say he's the lesser of many evils. It's truly hard to figure out what type of candidate, specifically Republican, could stand up to Democratic criticism and actually be elected. It's the same thing for all conservative candidates - many of the same things were said about Bush, but Trump is just more of a threat to their power.

All that to say, I'd love to see another viable Republican candidate emerge, but I don't think we will. They will simply be destroyed. So it's Trump or more liberalism. But I've said many times that the future is blue, just depends on what shade, so maybe that is inevitable. Progressivism always seems to win, whether or not that's a good thing - is a separate issue.

 

[WilCoDawg]

I dont think Trump is Satan in the flesh. I do think Trump is dangerous to the country for many reasons, but mostly because I dont think he actually gives a 17 about policies or positions and will say or do whatever he thinks will make him popular and powerful. He is a showman and has shown he lacks ethics and morals. And to be clear, I am not saying he lacks the ethics and morals that I align with- I think he straight up outright lacks them at all. His willingness to say whatever the 17 he thinks in the moment, regardless of if it totally conflicts with stuff he said before, highlights that lack of ethics and morals.

As for why being a Nationalist is bad...yeah in a very general sense, you want a president who has a nationalistic perspective. That is a very general sense though, and in practice, I cant think of anyone that would identify as being a Nationalist who isnt also heavily viewed as an extremist and dangerous to groups in the country.

Now replace “Trump” with “Biden“ and you still have the same story. Funny how that works. There is no person in politics who stands up to the character we all used to hold so dear.

And “nationalist” only became a pejorative when the left decided to use it against Trump. There’s nothing wrong with being a nationalist. I worry about people who don’t want their own country to succeed. It’d be like being a MSU fan but wanting other schools to do as well or better than MSU.

 

[Boom Boom]

First, nothing you've said addresses that "finding middle ground" first relies on actually addressing Trumps faults. What you've done instead is conclude he's a mirror image of the public and "at least he's strong" and the "lesser of evils"!

In other words, he's a mirror image of the American public.

No. A mirror image of the typical Republican voters, yes.

But in his defense, at least he is strong.

He lost an election to Joe Biden. He's never been strong, he's just a shameless ahole. Republicans love that. But the slice of voters they need to win a national election do not love that in their president.

Every candidate we put forth who is ethical or moral, seems to be a pushover. You almost have to be an arsehole to stand up to a shltty public these days.

it definitly is difficult to stand up with an imcoherent political philosophy from even mild questioning from our horrible political press.

A truly strong candidate would call out at least the most ridiculous parts of Republican ideology. But yall HATE that.

So you could say he's the lesser of many evils.

Nothing you have said leads to that conclusion at all. Leaving out the extremely remote possibility that everything we know about Trump (mainly from his own words and actions!) Is just false, everything we know says he's greater of all (political) evils.

It's truly hard to figure out what type of candidate, specifically Republican, could stand up to Democratic criticism and actually be elected. It's the same thing for all conservative candidates - many of the same things were said about Bush, but Trump is just more of a threat to their power.

Maybe adjust some positions to be electable! It's actually not hard at all, yall have elected HW Bush, W Bush, and Trump! Just nominate someone likeable that promises to do things that people like!

All that to say, I'd love to see another viable Republican candidate emerge, but I don't think we will. They will simply be destroyed. So it's Trump or more liberalism. But I've said many times that the future is blue, just depends on what shade, so maybe that is inevitable. Progressivism always seems to win, whether or not that's a good thing - is a separate issue.

Politics is not a zero sum game. If one side gains a substantial advantage, the other adjusts to improve their electability. That's how politics is supposed to work! Of course, some prefer to just rig the system. The GOP has been relying on that in an ever increasing way for decades.

 

[Boom Boom]

Now replace “Trump” with “Biden“ and you still have the same story. Funny how that works. There is no person in politics who stands up to the character we all used to hold so dear.

And “nationalist” only became a pejorative when the left decided to use it against Trump. There’s nothing wrong with being a nationalist. I worry about people who don’t want their own country to succeed. It’d be like being a MSU fan but wanting other schools to do as well or better than MSU.

No, you wouldn't have the same story. That this is said at all is indicative of the problem. Biden halls faults, many of them! His own Party fantasizes about him not being on the ticket. They don't run around insisting how strong and great at speaking he is.

 

[Drebin]

First, nothing you've said addresses that "finding middle ground" first relies on actually addressing Trumps faults. What you've done instead is conclude he's a mirror image of the public and "at least he's strong" and the "lesser of evils"!


No. A mirror image of the typical Republican voters, yes.

He lost an election to Joe Biden. He's never been strong, he's just a shameless ahole. Republicans love that. But the slice of voters they need to win a national election do not love that in their president.

it definitly is difficult to stand up with an imcoherent political philosophy from even mild questioning from our horrible political press.

A truly strong candidate would call out at least the most ridiculous parts of Republican ideology. But yall HATE that.

Nothing you have said leads to that conclusion at all. Leaving out the extremely remote possibility that everything we know about Trump (mainly from his own words and actions!) Is just false, everything we know says he's greater of all (political) evils.

Maybe adjust some positions to be electable! It's actually not hard at all, yall have elected HW Bush, W Bush, and Trump! Just nominate someone likeable that promises to do things that people like!

Politics is not a zero sum game. If one side gains a substantial advantage, the other adjusts to improve their electability. That's how politics is supposed to work! Of course, some prefer to just rig the system. The GOP has been relying on that in an ever increasing way for decades.

I've been resisting to jump in the fray here but your last comment in this post is particularly rich.

I really hope you're not as big of a piece of shlt in real life as you are on SPS. My hope, for the sake of any children you and your husband may have adopted, is that this is just a SPS gimmick you like to play.

 

[Boom Boom]

I've been resisting to jump in the fray here but your last comment in this post is particularly rich.

I really hope you're not as big of a piece of shlt in real life as you are on SPS. My hope, for the sake of any children you and your husband may have adopted, is that this is just a SPS gimmick you like to play.

I am not surprised that you don't see it. Not that the Dems are angles, but the reality of gerrymandering and what cons have to done to the Civil Rights Act and why are plain to see.

I am not a POS in either. Your comment is just your immaturity showing.

 

[mstateglfr]

In other words, he's a mirror image of the American public.

I can take this response a few different directions and none are good.

- It isn't a compliment that he is a mirror image of the American public(if he even is). And I expect more from the President than from a large population that has significant numbers of uneducated people, paranoid fearful people, meth heads, and more.
POTUS should not be 'one of the guys'. I grt that it's fun to dream of that, but it's a 17ing nightmare when actually played out.

- He is not a mirror image of the American public. Many people actually have views that are too uncompromising, but I think Trump lacks conviction. Those are opposite.

- Is Trump a mirror image of the American public or is the American public a mirror image of Trump? Yes yes, it's a mirror image so they are the same...but I am actually saying I think a lot of the crazy and outlandish views, opinions, and efforts we have seen in the last 8 years by the public is due, in large part, to seeing a President and Party leader doing it without consequence. They see that it's OK to say terrible things. They see that it's OK to verbally attack anyone regardless of it the claims are true or if you even believe them. They see it's OK to be outwardly hostile to those who don't look like you.




Regardless of which of the above is accurate, or if any are, I really do think the President should be expected to behave better than Americans as a whole.
Maybe I am the one having a dream now.

 

[mstateglfr]

Now replace “Trump” with “Biden“ and you still have the same story. Funny how that works. There is no person in politics who stands up to the character we all used to hold so dear.

And “nationalist” only became a pejorative when the left decided to use it against Trump. There’s nothing wrong with being a nationalist. I worry about people who don’t want their own country to succeed. It’d be like being a MSU fan but wanting other schools to do as well or better than MSU.

I don't think Biden is a showman.
I don't think Biden lacks ethics and morals...at least not to the extent of Trump.
I don't think Biden says whatever the 17 he wants and it then directly contradicts what he said about a person a short while earlier.



Again- I didnt want Biden as POTUS in '20 and I don't want him to run now.
Clearly I don't get what I want, but it needs to be acknowledged that I am not an apologist for Biden, but you seem to think I am or I should be, since you said 'now do Biden' as if that's some great point.

 

[Drebin]

I am not surprised that you don't see it. Not that the Dems are angles, but the reality of gerrymandering and what cons have to done to the Civil Rights Act and why are plain to see.

I am not a POS in either. Your comment is just your immaturity showing.

Evidence that you are a certified, huge, stinking POS:

1) You only relate gerrymandering to the GOP and ignore obvious and blatant examples in blue states and attempts to gerrymander at the federal level by granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood and eliminating the senate filibuster and the electoral college. I don't see GOP members crying about all the gerrymandering going on in Orange County, CA, or upstate NJ, or in western PA. I certainly don't see you having a problem with it either, which you would, if you were really this passionate about gerrymandering and you were an actual person of integrity.

2) You make the GOP the enemy of civil rights when the GOP is primarily responsible for the civil rights act passing and it was democrats blocking the legislation. Changing history because you're uncomfortable with actual history is also a symptom of someone with no integrity.

 

[Drebin]

I don't think Biden is a showman.
I don't think Biden lacks ethics and morals...at least not to the extent of Trump.
I don't think Biden says whatever the 17 he wants and it then directly contradicts what he said about a person a short while earlier.

Joe Biden is the most racist president to occupy the White House since LBJ, who, for those keeping score at home, was also a democrat.

 

[Boom Boom]

Evidence that you are a certified, huge, stinking POS:

1) You only relate gerrymandering to the GOP and ignore obvious and blatant examples in blue states and attempts to gerrymander at the federal level by granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood and eliminating the senate filibuster and the electoral college. I don't see GOP members crying about all the gerrymandering going on in Orange County, CA, or upstate NJ, or in western PA. I certainly don't see you having a problem with it either, which you would, if you were really this passionate about gerrymandering and you were an actual person of integrity.

2) You make the GOP the enemy of civil rights when the GOP is primarily responsible for the civil rights act passing and it was democrats blocking the legislation. Changing history because you're uncomfortable with actual history is also a symptom of someone with no integrity.

Im against all gerrymandering. I recognize that the Dems do it some, while also recognizing that the GOP doing it more has the greater effect.

GOP members cry about everything. Guess you don't see that either.

#2 is so ridiculous it's not even worth discussing. I was not alive back then and the Parties have had different views on the CRA since the 60s.

Back to no evidence, but you'll stick with calling me a POS. Says it all.

 

[Boom Boom]

Joe Biden is the most racist president to occupy the White House since LBJ, who, for those keeping score at home, was also a democrat.