This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
carpediem · 61-69, M
Honest opinion and debate is always welcome. But hatered needs to simply be ignored. LOTS of that on the left. Just watch the nasty comments to follow.
1-25 of 70
carpediem · 61-69, M
@Carla Agreed. But the left seemed to excel at the nastiness. You've been practicing for the past four plus years and have honed your skills. There can't be a mention of Trump without terrible names and accusations. Or even Republicans for that matter.
You, while attempting to "bring us all together" made sure you excluded Trump voters. Not a very smart move if your intention was as advertised. I suspect it was not as evidenced by your own submission.
You, while attempting to "bring us all together" made sure you excluded Trump voters. Not a very smart move if your intention was as advertised. I suspect it was not as evidenced by your own submission.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Carla, that is the classic no I'm not you are lol @Carla
Carla · 61-69, F
@carpediem with or with out my written exclusion, true trumpists would have come to that post and figuratively poked me and those that agreed with me, in the eye.
You know that to be true.
It will never cease to amaze me that in this day and time, so many can be brought to such ugliness over one, very flawed and hateful man.
Say what you will, but people with undying and unquestionable loyalty to any one person, is very cult like, and therefore nearly impossible to to communicate with.
You know that to be true.
It will never cease to amaze me that in this day and time, so many can be brought to such ugliness over one, very flawed and hateful man.
Say what you will, but people with undying and unquestionable loyalty to any one person, is very cult like, and therefore nearly impossible to to communicate with.
Carla · 61-69, F
@jackjjackson really jack? That's what you took from what I said?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
yeah really. you're regurgitating dem talking points. you should be thinking for yourself.@Carla
Carla · 61-69, F
@jackjjackson I've never not thought for myself jack. I dont need cable tv or some radio personality to form my thoughts. These are mine.
TexChik · F
@jackjjackson what is that smell ?
carpediem · 61-69, M
@Carla It's YOUR problem not mine. You are the one who is intolerant. Not me. You can't handle another view outside your own. Not me.
Your attitude is the ugliness in the country. Not Trump. You and your terribly intolerant hate filled left wing extremists. It's all yours. Own it.
One quick edit. Your hatred for those of us who supported Trump is so great you had to invent a childish word to describe us. "Trumpists". That's disgusting.
You seem to share the liberal elitist attitude that surely makes you more superior than us lowly Republicans who are racists, and every other nasty term you can conjure up.
I confess I used to think you might be a reasoned liberal voice with whom debating would be challenging and informative. But I was wrong. You are filled with hate.
Your attitude is the ugliness in the country. Not Trump. You and your terribly intolerant hate filled left wing extremists. It's all yours. Own it.
One quick edit. Your hatred for those of us who supported Trump is so great you had to invent a childish word to describe us. "Trumpists". That's disgusting.
You seem to share the liberal elitist attitude that surely makes you more superior than us lowly Republicans who are racists, and every other nasty term you can conjure up.
I confess I used to think you might be a reasoned liberal voice with whom debating would be challenging and informative. But I was wrong. You are filled with hate.
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik That is an outright lie. Any mention of even slight criticism of Trump and you block in a fit of rage. I fully expect to be blocked by you now.
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain really ? Blind, ignorant parroting of CNN propaganda without any facts available followed by profane remarks is not a calm cordial discussion and the foul mouthed libtard gets blocked . I can disagree with a lib in a normal conversation and let facts take precedent all day long .
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik ok then. Have you finally accepted that Trump has lost, or will not even the counting of the EC votes convince you ?
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain nope , libs can’t win a fair election . A huge fraud was committed and can not be allowed to stand or it’s the end of the republic , freedom, and the constitution. The Supreme Court was always going to get this one . I predicted it before Election Day .
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik There is no evidence of widespread fraud (Trump’s Twitter feed is not evidence) and the Supreme Court will not get involved.
Your prediction is wrong, unfortunately, as we will see on the 14th.
Your prediction is wrong, unfortunately, as we will see on the 14th.
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain there is . Libs of course don’t want to admit it . If trump flops in the supreme court fine , at least he will get a fair hearing there . .He has a case . Did you complain about Al Gore and his 37 days of hanging chads ?
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik No, because I was only five at the time.
Also, from what I can tell, the Bush-Gore election was breathtakingly close.
This election was not close. Biden has won easily.
Also, from what I can tell, the Bush-Gore election was breathtakingly close.
This election was not close. Biden has won easily.
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain I read a lot of reports about poll workers arrrsted with punched ballots in the trunks of their cars . The fraud happened . A constitutional solution must be adopted or chaos will ensue .
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik Well why then has Trump’s so-called legal team not produced any concrete evidence of this, so that it can get taken seriously by judges that Trump himself often personally appointed?
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain for a lower hostile court? Not a chance . The denials by the lib judges are all they seek at this time to open the door to the highest court... where they will present their volumes of evidence . If you think it was fair then why do you care ? If Trump has no evidence then he will lose .
Uachtarain · 31-35, M
@TexChik but the vast majority of these cases were thrown out by conservative judges in the lower courts. This kind of proved that Trump has no evidence. Therefore, he will lose.
TexChik · F
@Uachtarain nope . It means that a lower district court can not over rule their state Supreme Court which illegally allowed late ballot and unsigned ballot counting.
Like I said , why are you whining about Trump taking his case to scotus . ?
Like I said , why are you whining about Trump taking his case to scotus . ?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
You gotta school these clowns. @TexChik
1-25 of 70