What Happens After?

a reply to: watchitburn

As opposed to an absolute belief of speciously determined voter fraud that failed every challenge, even with Trump supporting judges? What's a bullsh*t pot, oh great kettle?

Any vote like that (regardless of redundancy) incenses some woman in the same way a bullsh*t Breitbart story convinces some people of fraud.

Oh no, Rainbows! Don't forget to do 15 Hail Marys, which are now lyrics to "Born This Way" by Lady Gaga.

DEI is failing. Woke failed to make corporate America money and PC principles backfired against Israel. Don't worry, the religion is all totally plastic virtue signaling, and has fallen on a bear market and out of favor.

I like the rainbow capital pictured there. That's like our all-purpose light-up government building.




Ours is in July, so the Red/White/Blue preceeds the rainbows.

a reply to: Degradation33

None of the cases brought immediately following the 2020 election were heard by a judge with evidence examined.

Every one was refused be heard on the grounds of standing or jurisdiction.

It's taken 3 years of lawsuits for records and State legislature hearings for it to be proven publicly what we all saw happen in real time.

But it has been proven. This is a fact.

There's just no mechanism for redress at this point.

a reply to: watchitburn

Do you need one?

You're gonna get him the better 4 years. 2 cooking global conflicts, and one being brought up to temperature. A porous border enabled by his predecessor and a deficit left over from covid and all the subsequent stupid spending. This is his better time to shine if he's the great leader he's made up to be.

I have never read a piece of compelling evidence for fraud. Perhaps stuff has come out since he failed 81 times, I don't know, but it seems irrelevant now.

Just consider it like everybody needed to learn their lesson first for voting against him? But don't take it quite to "God worked within our constitution to spare him for a final battle" territory.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: watchitburn

Do you need one?

You're gonna get him the better 4 years. 2 cooking global conflicts, and one being brought up to temperature. A porous border enabled by his predecessor and a deficit left over from covid and all the subsequent stupid spending.

I have never read a piece of compelling evidence for fraud. Perhaps stuff has come out since he failed 81 times, I don't know, but it seems irrelevant now.

Just consider it like everybody needed to learn their lesson first for voting against him? But don't take it quite to "God spared him for a final battle" territory.

Your preceding text shows that it is in fact relevant. They managed the fraud once and plunged the world into chaos, they're going to do it again.

I've never pushed that "chosen one" BS. And have told the Q folks several times to cut that nonsense out.

I'd prefer someone other than Trump.
He makes terrible personnel choices, and he still brags about "Warp Speed". And the media did so good of a job of pushing the Russia nonsense that too many people have permanent TDS.

But he's who we're stuck with to oppose the current regime.

a reply to: watchitburn

He's more ahead in key swing states than he was at this point in 2020. The only thing keeping his Vegas odds down is the DoJ. Though it appears he just got by that and will be on everyone's ballot.

It would take the same 2020 force me jure to steal it again. And if Ohio (+8), North Carolina (+7), Texas (+5), Florida (+9) , and so on magically flip without the aid of a virus lock down and racist cops I will TOTALLY BE ON YOUR SIDE in saying there is no f*cking way that could have happened.

I'm trying to keep it simple, and there are only Acts of God and overlooked/controlled women voters standing in his way in my mind. It needs to really turn on him now in a way I don't think is possible. And if he choses a Nicki Haley (whose sudden flip flop may signal something) it's a lot better for him than if he chooses a Tim Scott.

a reply to: Degradation33

I disagree on Haley. She's just Clinton without the body count.

She's the Establishment tool the Defense Industry wants. They will kill Trump and be happy to have her step in.

He would lose mine and many other people's votes if he picks her.

I'd prefer he picks Tulsi, the establishment hates her too. She's not great but she's at least reasonable. And a good life insurance policy for Trump.

originally posted by: Degradation33
he choses a Nicki Haley...

Nicki Haley said she is a proud globalist.
Anyone like her would also be a globalist.
Trump is running (supposedly) against the globalists.
It wouldn't work.

(I agree with you on Tim Scott)

a reply to: gortex

Must be nice to live with your head completely in the sand and at the same time it must be exhausting hating a man so much just because the media told you to.

a reply to: watchitburn

Or Tusli. Preferably a woman that signals "when we take over the country, we won't take over your bodies" would be just fantastic. Instead of Alito's judgement flags and the march of christian nationalism off to fight the baby killers.

More of Trump saying, "Let Arizona figure it out." And I think the last barrier of opposition is passed. "Totally objective" DoJ aside.

I just don't want to see the outcome of him losing to be honest. Not the last 4 years on steroids. So if he positions his 2nd term to be moderate on important social and REAL gender issues it beats the hell out of watching Joe deteriorate in age some more.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: watchitburn

Or Tusli. Preferably a woman that signals "when we take over the country, we won't take over your bodies" would be just fantastic. Instead of Alito's judgement flags and the march of christian nationalism off to fight the baby killers.

More of Trump saying, "Let Arizona figure it out." And I think the last barrier of opposition is passed. "Totally objective" DoJ aside.

I just don't want to see the outcome of him losing to be honest. Not the last 4 years on steroids. So if he positions his 2nd term to be moderate on important social and REAL gender issues it beats the hell out of watching Joe deteriorate in age some more.

Tulsi Gabbard would be an excellent middle-ground selection, forget her politics, she has integrity and in a world of diminished and flawed candidates integrity is enough.


And yes it might take that bitter orange taste out of some mouths.

a reply to: TheTardis2

It has already started by Governor Greg Abbott usurping Federal authority on their southern border with Mexico and closing it off to illegal migration. And how many states sent their National Guard and law enforcement to help them? My state sent assistance as did many other red states. It has already started.

Desantis fired a corrupt Soros-funded DA in Florida and their Supreme Court upheld his firing of that DA.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: TheTardis2

It has already started by Governor Greg Abbott usurping Federal authority on their southern border with Mexico and closing it off to illegal migration. And how many states sent their National Guard and law enforcement to help them? My state sent assistance as did many other red states. It has already started.

Desantis fired a corrupt Soros-funded DA in Florida and their Supreme Court upheld his firing of that DA.

This highlights in my uneducated 59-year-old opinion, the immense importance of states' rights, for both sides.

A state can somewhat counter any foul-smelling federal legislature, toward what most residents in thier state prefer. Sure it takes forever but in a country of 330 million with diverse demographics, more diversity than any other nation BTW, the process needs to be slow steady, and methodical.

Exactly as the system is supposed to work.

a reply to: Degradation33

I think Gabbard would be a good choice for Trump. I don't agree with all of her foreign relations postures, particularly her Israel position, but overall I think she's got integrity to do the right thing, and to follow orders. I think she has the right personality to keep someone like Trump in check (to the extent this is possible). I think she's got enough spine to stand up and speak when something is dangerously off-course.

I'm interested to hear your take on her. I can't tell from your reply, but it sounds like you do not like her (or did I misread this?).

I think she would bring some balance into the White house, something which is sorely missing (on all fronts). She's been a pretty consistent voice of reason regardless of what arm band she was wearing. And, she's willing to do it. I think Trump would almost be foolish not to pick her, but I'm interested to hear other thoughts. I've been looking carefully at her policies lately and it seems like a good fit. Only reservation I can see is Trump might actually be afraid of her owing to some of these strengths.

What harm do you think she would cause as VP?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

She stood up to Clinton and the DNC. They labeled her a Putin puppet and destroyed her political career.

She won't cowtow to the establishment. I don't agree with her on everything, but at least she can state her positions logically.

If something happened to Trump I wouldn't be worried that she'd drag us into a nuclear war.

a reply to: watchitburn

Exactly, I think she'd be a good backstop for Trump were he to step down, or were the "Orange Man BAD!" gang able to sink their foaming fangs into him.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I bet you didn't know she is very much anti gun. It takes a min to do research on people and I am fully aware of others lack of doing so on here but maybe that will make a light bulb turn on for ya.

We need Terry Crews to run for the Mt. Dew party so we can get this rehabilitation started.

originally posted by: TheTardis2
Ok, So I did some searching around and I cant really find the explanation I am looking for. I will start by saying I firmly believe that the next election will be so full of cheating that it will be in your face and obvious. The last election had enough for anyone with any common sense to question it but yet here we are. It was overlooked by those in power and those with the ability to do anything about it. At the same time we are not the same society we were 200 years ago. We are not going to pick up weapons and march on the capital. They have sissified most of the younger generations and the rest do not have any real power to effect change.

I believe after the election we are going to be left with two choices.

Choice #1 Accept the cheating and hope we can survive the next 4 years, or longer because if they get away with again it will never end. Every election from this point on will be cheated and opponents will be subject to lawfare and kangaroo courts. We will truly become a two class society and the government will now own us. There will be nothing to stop it.

Choice #2 The American population does something about it. We take those constitutional rights that they have not been able to take away and we use them for their intended purpose. The citizens take up arms and we fix what is broken.

So the question truly is this. What does that look like? How does it start and who has the power to organize and make that work correctly? Obviously Joe Schmo in the suburbs isn't going to be grabbing and AR and shooting up his neighbors house. So where does this start? Is it high ranking military? Is it a convention of states? Is it a few governors succeeding their states from the union? Should it come to something like that, how does it start and who starts it? I am asking a real question because I do believe it is a real possibility but it cant just be militia mobs running around their cities. Someone has to take charge and organize whatever it is.

Doesn't the constitution say something about taxation without representation? If everyone stopped paying taxes 10 times on money they've already paid taxes on...that would stop it in a hurry. Average Joe/Jane money is what is funding all the perceived corruption and always has. Keep your hard earned money. But it would have to be done by everyone all at once, and people in the USA (a) can't afford to do it and see what might happen (2) too afraid of repercussions (3) not everyone believes/thinks we are in trouble.

So many people have been lulled to sleep with a cozy idea of what life should be, they don't want to rock the boat.

As for me, I haven't made as much as some over the years so I would be willing to pay more if I earned more. But overall, many people just spend their lives working in order to give it all back to the government. And they aren't even allowed to come to the meetings to help vote on changes they want to happen. Without representation, imo.

originally posted by: budzprime69
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I bet you didn't know she is very much anti gun. It takes a min to do research on people and I am fully aware of others lack of doing so on here but maybe that will make a light bulb turn on for ya.

Man Im 59 years old Ive never had a candidate or ticket I completely agreed with thier viewpoints.

Simply, Gabbard might help Trump snag some of the Democratic votes in battleground states. Gabbard has shown a willingness to fight the Democrats, I don't see them getting together


Of course, people here know she is anti-gun too, to a certain extent, her positives outweigh the negatives unless you tell me how a VP's opposite stance to their President is somehow going to ooze into the federal legislature and become actual law in the next 4 damn years.