WoW.
There's a header on this forum that says this is a place for respectful debate.
This article is many, many things but "respectful"? Not even close.
Oh, I don't know.....the article seems to be far more respectful towards Biden than Nancy Pelosi ever was towards Trump. At the very least, Nancy the Shrew knew what she was doing and saying; I doubt that Joe has much of an idea of where he is at any particular moment, and he says whatever he's told to say.
In no particular order, this article:
- Suggests President Biden is a puppet.
He is.
- Accuses President Biden of being "angry"
He appears any way his handlers tell him to be. "You've got to appear to be really upset, Mr. President. That'll stir up the base and build support for the Party. Got it? Okay. Go knock 'em dead, tiger!"
- Seems to ignore the fact the Trump supporters actually, you know, successfully interrupted the peaceful transfer of power and attempt to overthrow the government on a lie that the election as somehow "stolen".
A) The January 6th protest was essentially about an electorate that knew fully well the 2020 election was rigged, and they wanted an accounting of the accuracy of the vote. However, nobody in the Feddle Gummint was willing to listen to them; so, they decided they would go to Washington and
make them listen to them. It was the only avenue they had left to them---the Gummint wouldn't listen; the courts are worthless; the media is nothing but a paid harlot of the Gummint; what else were they supposed to do?
B) The narrative that January 6th was an "insurrection" or an attempt to "overthrow the government" is so ridiculous that it's laughable. Those people were upset, and they wanted somebody to listen to them, that's all. If they'd been there to stage a coup, they would have showed up in much larger numbers, they would have been much better armed, and they would have been much,
much more violent than they were. Think of the "mostly peaceful" protests in Portland, Oregon, after George Floyd was killed, and re-locate that violence to Washington after the election, and you get some kind of an idea.
C) As for the election being stolen, it was. And I don't care what kind of "evidence" you trot out, nobody will ever convince me that Biden was lawfully elected. He was losing, and losing badly, right up until about 3:00 in the morning, when suddenly, hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden just magically appeared out of thin air. It was fixed, plain and simple. There were reports of Trump votes being switched to Biden. There were reports of uncounted Trump votes being found in dumpsters. There were reports of rigged voting machines. There were reports of multiple votes for Biden by single voters in mail-in returns.
Heck, I
myself got at least four different mail-in ballots delivered to my house. I threw them all away, because I believe in voting in person. But I
could have filled them all out, and sent them all back in, presumably. Due to the Wuhan Flu (another manufactured crisis, if there ever was one), I don't think that this stuff was being very carefully tracked, if at all. Nancy the Shrew and her playmates knew this fully well, and took advantage of it to make sure that Biden would be placed in office.
Placed, mind you, not elected.
- Characterized the border problem, which is the cause partially by climate change, as an "invasion"
Yeah, the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire in the 4th century weren't "invasions", either. They were examples of poor people being threatened by intolerable conditions in their own countries (i.e., the Huns), and wanting a better life for themselves inside the borders of the big, fat, rich country with all the free goodies and bennies. The result was still the same: too many people came in, the systems were overwhelmed, the society collapsed, and the new people looted the country until it was dry, then settled down in the lands they took, while the original inhabitants (the Romans) slowly died out.
Cosmic Charlie said:
(A characterization, btw, the US Federal courts have rejected)
I'm not sure who still listens to Federal courts any more, to be honest; the politicians do only when it suits their agendas, and everything else appears to be random, capricious, unconstitutional, or ludicrous.
- And then conflated all this abortion and Trans rights, for what appears, to this reader at least, as a way to get Catholics to have a knee jerk response to the above Bull Hockey.
Abortion is not in the Constitution. The "right" to it is a fantasy dreamed up by Justice Blackmun in a mythical, faraway land called "The Penumbra". There is no "penumbra"; there never was. If there had been, no end of outlandish concepts could have been stipulated under it---like the idea that seven-year old children have the "right" to determine their gender, and if their parents disagree with that, the kids should be taken away from them and the government should pay for the kids' "gender reassignment" surgeries. It's all right there in "The Penumbra".
Really ?
This is what passes for respectful debate on this forum ?
Hey, be happy: at least nobody ripped up a copy of Stumblin' Joe's tirade on live TV.
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
Like the opinion that there are only two genders, male and female, and that the two are not interchangeable? Absolutely. Those aren't "facts". Who needs biology anyway?
And, as always, Charlie: neither you nor anyone else are in any way required to agree with me. My viewpoints are mine, and yours, are yours; your mileage may vary. Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited. Act now, as supplies are limited; not pertinent in conjunction with other offers. Not available in Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, Portland Oregon, San Francisco, or outlying districts of Los Angeles.
remnantnewspaper.com
