In was talking about guns. The process to take them away is more elaborate than cabinet decisions.

A court decision? Time to get Biden off that bench. Still, there is a supreme court.

Lol have you seen the court appointments in the last 4 years? We're good on conservative courts, I assure you.

But they are there to be pro business and anti-environment. The rest is secondary.

We probably wouldn't be talking right now if we had. Lol

I'm a bit angular on that subject, if you can imagine.

I'm a loose vegetarian.

Eggs, fish and dairy are ok. I wouldn't want to live in a world without cheese.

That's awesome. You know what's really good with cheese?

Everything

I don't know. How?

I never gave it the first thought, honestly. I know they're not swimming in success at the moment.

Hahahaha low hanging fruit joke

Fruit is good, except citrus. Too bitey.

No, we are on an alienation of friendly countries path. They'll probably stick with that.

My moral opinions include factory farming.

If we keep forsaking our friends, China is going to eat everyone up, by their own request.

...just like oil is a necessary evil which gets morphed into carte blanche.

The rest of The world doesn't need much excuse to abandon us in favor of China. They don't like instability...or derision for that matter.

Exactly. Just like the carbon tax in koalaland. Worked out great in the end.

That is exactly my point, Georgia. The businesses all claimed they'd go under as a scare tactic but ended up modernizing and making themselves more efficient. No more need for carbon tax. It accomplished its mission.

Emissions were severely curtailed. They would still be using 1950's standards, if they had no financial motive to change.

That's the scare tactic. Like they will just pack up and stop wanting to be successful unless they get completely free reign. It's a scam.

I'd seen the data years ago. It worked.

Yes, it costs money to not pour your waste into the environment. It's a necessary public burden. We don't have anywhere else to go.

Energy industries are always jerking our leash. That's another tactic. Completely artificial.

Hahaha call elon

Wind, water, nuclear...and the next thing, if we can stop the war on science.

That doesn't mean no fossil fuels. It just means they will last longer.

It's not an either-or scenario. That's the story that's being peddled and it's bullshit.

I forgot to type solar. Solar is good.

That doesn't mean we can't use it. Plus that's not entirely true.

We need to get out of here. They're posting election stuff.

Yes, that doesn't render it useless. It's not either-or. It's an amalgamation.

Yes and ideally he will think he has a chance until 01/20/21. That way he won't be able to run around spitefully pulling lynch pins during a 2-month tantrum.

@Gypsy_Warlord @Doc You can pretend he doesn't display, unapologetically, public tantrums nearly daily (litany of petty schoolgirl twitter rants notwithstanding.) It's not inconceivable that losing the election could trigger such a person more than criticism from Rosie O'Donnell would. It's not coming out of nowhere and blind denial doesn't invalidate anything.

Parse that how you wish. You're being disingenuous.

I'm saying his vindictive nature is obvious and undeniable and when coupled with his penchant for whimsical executive orders and policy moods, the Supreme Court could end up playing whack-a-mole with his outbursts during a time of already significant turmoil. I'm also saying you can, of course, disagree but pretending you have no idea at all from whence this concern is coming is plainly disingenuous on its face.

And so it begins...Trump is already talking about firing a bunch of people who were apparently acceptable to help run the country until he got angry. But yeah, no basis for indicating he has a spiteful nature. Thanks for the guidance, guys.

I don't know how to post links. Hang on. Let me go listen again.

https://youtu.be/sHOEJzFCufg

That was easier than I thought. The part about his remaining time starts at around 5:10. I had already thought this stuff since I posted last night.

I don't think anyone would sincerely suggest that you don't hold personal dominion over to what your faith is applied and what methods you employ to get there. Expect to see a presumption of innocence, in a legal sense, from many others who are also employing methods of their choosing.

Fox news tied their own noose when they initially hitched their wagon.

But to be fair, they made a lot of money from pandering in the interim.

@Doc Gatekeeper - Arbiter of Qualification

We see a lot of that on the left and very rarely on the right, which makes you somewhat of an anomaly.

I was boxed out but would like to register that my claims were about vindictiveness and petty spite, of which we have all seen a pattern of behavior. Secondly, my accusation of disingenuousness was in regard to people pretending like they couldn't conjure an understanding of how a person could reasonably see Trump that way. It had nothing to do with others being dishonest about their opinions of him or how they choose to treat their observations. I make no claims about his intelligence or 'calculated' 11 dimensional chess skills.

All good. It was more to acknowledge the defective straw-manning which ensued than anything.

You're still doing it. I never said anything about being a moron.

Because I don't think he is a moron. I can see how hypersensitivity to the subject of Trump all funnels into a big bucket but my statements were specific.

It was not anything of the sort. You inferred that.

You don't get to reframe or elaborate upon my claims on my behalf.

I'm not always perfect at being careful about choosing my words but I try. In this case, I stand behind them in their simple meanings. And you were correct to infer immaturity. I don't connect that with intelligence.

I was framing the personality I can actually see, not ideology.

I must have missed someone's 'moron' comment. If this isn't about me, God bless...but I still felt obligated to register a correction on the initial response.

Agreed. Lol Good talk.

No, no. Catchy title. Well played. Lol

I totally got pre-busted ripping out a frenzied polemic. For the record, the description of what I was physically doing was spot on. @RobertGrulerEsq

Red Illinois. Surreal.

It's always fun until someone loses an eye...it makes getting the other one less challenging.

@michaelh So many possibilities. It's like navigating funhouse mirrors.

300,000 is a fairly specific threshold. How did you determine that floor?

Wow I didn't even notice California. Even more bizarre. I'm in Illinois.

Where I am, it's rare to hear anything good about Trump. I think it might depend on with whom you're hanging.

Looks like all the characteristics of a discussion to me.

That seems to have been her point.

Idk man. There are a lot of numerology-like contortions going around. There is a pile of smart people out there on both sides. One would have to know what the other would see, in order to be sophisticated enough to pull off a caper like this. That's just my intuition.

Rob went through it. That guy had better hope he properly understood what was being directed and wasn't just looking for malfeasance where it didn't exist.

It's called confirmation bias. Count the hits but not the misses.

No one is suggesting things shouldn't be investigated. The suggestion is that, with the scores of claims that have already turned out to be perfectly normal course, it might be a good idea to temper wishful thinking, lest the result render the anxiety unnecessary and the truth palatable.

Not letting in angry hordes with an agenda is not the same thing as banning observers. There are legally appointed observers from both sides present. They thought of that.

It's probably a good idea to control access to venues containing live ballots, particularly when people are upset. That's all I'm saying.

If someone refused access to a legal observer who was following the covenants to which they agreed, anyone who did it would be in jail as we speak.

All of these theories rely on the absence of process controls that actually exist and we wouldn't even have thought up. It's not set up as simply as if you or I designed it.

I have no idea whether the law was broken but I know that there are people who do.

Who know whether laws were broken.

You are already accepting these as facts. I don't know the complexities of any of them and suggest that it's possible that you might not either.

Like I said, there are people much higher up in the food chain with an arguably greater stake in this and who also have access to all you have and more. There is nothing wrong with keeping abreast but if they are, in fact, facts, everything will be as it should.

Not accepting things that have not been demonstrated to my satisfaction could be biased. I don't think I am but in the same breath, I have no obligation not to be biased. Same goes for you. That's the beauty of it.

Lol the politicians from both sides have a greater stake. Don't kid yourself.

I am not convinced of anything.

My rights are perfectly well atm.

I disagree.

I contend I am not rolling over. I'm waiting for proof.

Not getting hyper about it at the first available moment before I am convinced is not defeatism.

No and that is not a claim about the current situation.

You asked a general question. I made sure you knew that I recognized that. Ask me a specific one about this case and I'll say I don't know.

That's not up to you, chief.

Let's say they pass a law to take your guns away...and there is a court order specific to you. Will you give them up? Will you just 'roll over'? Think it through. I'll wait.

Precisely my point. We're done here.

You not understanding a point has no bearing on it. Continuing to run around the track doesn't make the race still on.

Lol ok you win. Congrats!

Court orders must be immutably obeyed, unless you feel they are unlawful:

"Ill give them up if there is a court order,then contest it until I legally deal with it.However if its unlawfull then hell no I wont"

It wasn't even difficult.

I don't think that. I never said I did. People could have a lot of reasons to reject it. I don't know that they are even disobeying, much less the reason, if they were. Neither do you.

We've been over this. I make no claims about what they're doing or why they're doing it. I'm certainly not in a position to infer fraud from it either. I'm more interested in how you cannot recognize the contradiction regarding your staunch non-rollover policy when juxtaposed with your response to an actual example using the very concept you put forth immediately before the example was given.

Call me what you like. You said court orders must be obeyed blindly. Then you said if you personally determine that it's unlawful, you won't obey. Pick a lane, bro.

Retract that part of your statement as just locker room talk and you're whole again.

I'm not your secretary. I did it once and you know what it was.

That's not the part where you said you wouldn't follow an unlawful court order.

The court decides, by your rationale, by virtue of it being a court order. You can parse out the word 'personally' as if it is not clear and my point still stands.