Topic: The Absolute State of the Republicans
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #136,225
One just died, one is probably in a coma.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,446,051
Voting rights act ruling
USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
supreme court is stacked
unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
good luck
USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
supreme court is stacked
unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
good luck
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,053
@previous (B)
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
not happening, the elephant jews get off on being cuckolded.
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
not happening, the elephant jews get off on being cuckolded.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,071
Hey man, nice shot.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,072
@1,446,051 (B)
It’s weird you’re implying that the Republicans have authoritarian aspirations and aren’t playing fair and Democrats partake in voter fraud at the same time.
It’s weird you’re implying that the Republicans have authoritarian aspirations and aren’t playing fair and Democrats partake in voter fraud at the same time.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,088
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,114
@1,446,072 (A)
Republicans generally play by the rules, but if the democrats can't get ahold of themselves and keep breaking the rules then the social contract breaks down and it becomes about who's more competant at grabbing power.
Republicans generally play by the rules, but if the democrats can't get ahold of themselves and keep breaking the rules then the social contract breaks down and it becomes about who's more competant at grabbing power.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,134
@previous (B)
You listed one example of democrats not playing by the rules and three examples of republicans not playing by the rules.
@1,446,051 (B)
> Voting rights act ruling
>
> USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
>
> supreme court is stacked
>
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
>
> good luck
You listed one example of democrats not playing by the rules and three examples of republicans not playing by the rules.
@1,446,051 (B)
> Voting rights act ruling
>
> USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
>
> supreme court is stacked
>
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
>
> good luck
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,136
@previous (F)
The first three lines are all playing by the rules.
The 4th line about overturning democracy is just the backup if democrats keep cheating.
The first three lines are all playing by the rules.
The 4th line about overturning democracy is just the backup if democrats keep cheating.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,138
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,140
@previous (G)
The senate can approve a justice, the justices can rule on laws.
You can dislike the system, but the republicans are playing by the rules of that system.
If the democrats try to host an insurrection, or ignore voter ID laws congress could pass, there are laws for dealing with them. If they all just stop playing by the rules at once, there are options the other side has.
The senate can approve a justice, the justices can rule on laws.
You can dislike the system, but the republicans are playing by the rules of that system.
If the democrats try to host an insurrection, or ignore voter ID laws congress could pass, there are laws for dealing with them. If they all just stop playing by the rules at once, there are options the other side has.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,142
@previous (B)
You’re over here talking about how you want the republicans to create a dictatorship accusing the democrats of not following the rules.
Have you ever noticed there was no political crisis in America until Trump showed up? None of you idiots were constantly screaming about a non-existent crisis under Obama. If only you had a room temperature IQ you’d notice Trump is the source of the chaos.
You’re over here talking about how you want the republicans to create a dictatorship accusing the democrats of not following the rules.
Have you ever noticed there was no political crisis in America until Trump showed up? None of you idiots were constantly screaming about a non-existent crisis under Obama. If only you had a room temperature IQ you’d notice Trump is the source of the chaos.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,143
Anyway, what’s going on with China? What are they worried about?Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,144
@1,446,142 (G)
If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,145
I’m also just gonna say it, if you think a republican led dictatorship would be better than what you have right now, you’re fucking stupid. If the Republican Party doesn’t have to compete, they won’t have any incentive to serve your interests any longer. The only incentive of the party leading a party state is to stay in power. United Russia is right wing, the Communist Party of China is left wing, have you ever noticed that nobody ever brings that up because it’s completely irrelevant in an authoritarian system?
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,146
@1,446,144 (B)
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
The problem with sticking your neck out is that’s how your head gets chopped off. This is just naked authoritarian ambition.
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
The problem with sticking your neck out is that’s how your head gets chopped off. This is just naked authoritarian ambition.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,147
Really you said it backwards but what you actually think is that if Republicans win you’ll say it was fair and if they don’t you’ll say it’s unfair because you’re an authoritarian and you don’t actually support democracy.
Anonymous G quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,148
You know, the Chinese constitution actually guarantees the right for every man and woman over the age of 18 to vote?
They have the same opinion you do, people should be able to vote, but it is only a fair election if the CCP wins every time. Replace the Republican Party with the CCP and you’re no different from a Chinese communist.
They have the same opinion you do, people should be able to vote, but it is only a fair election if the CCP wins every time. Replace the Republican Party with the CCP and you’re no different from a Chinese communist.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,149
@1,446,146 (G)
The democrats could try to appeal to the voters, if they really love democracy.
Get rid of superdelegates and start representing policies the people actually like.
They'd sooner dissolve the party, though.
The democrats could try to appeal to the voters, if they really love democracy.
Get rid of superdelegates and start representing policies the people actually like.
They'd sooner dissolve the party, though.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,150
@previous (B)
You don’t love democracy, you suggested overturning democracy. You are an authoritarian.
You don’t love democracy, you suggested overturning democracy. You are an authoritarian.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,151
@1,446,148 (G)
No, I never said that.
Fake mail in ballots are already out, and making it a priority to stop voter ID when they are fine with it everywhere else shows the dnc hand.
No, I never said that.
Fake mail in ballots are already out, and making it a priority to stop voter ID when they are fine with it everywhere else shows the dnc hand.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,152
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,153
@1,446,151 (B)
You said that the outcome of an election is only fair if the republicans win. You’ll only accept the outcome of an election as fair if the republicans win. You said that.
@1,446,144 (B)
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
>
> If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
Don’t lie to me.
You said that the outcome of an election is only fair if the republicans win. You’ll only accept the outcome of an election as fair if the republicans win. You said that.
@1,446,144 (B)
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
>
> If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
Don’t lie to me.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,154
@previous (G)
That quote clearly states if they start an insurrection, nothing about winning the election.
That quote clearly states if they start an insurrection, nothing about winning the election.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,155
@1,446,152 (B)
> Not true, only the CCP can run in China.
That’s technically not actually true. There is more than one party in the National People’s Congress in China. But it is controlled opposition and kept small on purpose just to humor the concept of democracy, but just barely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
> Not true, only the CCP can run in China.
That’s technically not actually true. There is more than one party in the National People’s Congress in China. But it is controlled opposition and kept small on purpose just to humor the concept of democracy, but just barely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,156
@1,446,154 (B)
> That quote clearly states if they start an insurrection, nothing about winning the election.
No it doesn’t. Read the first sentence of that quote. You said if it’s fair the republicans win. That means you will only accept the outcome of an election as fair if republicans win, you don’t support democracy, you want a one party state and you also said the republicans should overthrow democracy. You’re an authoritarian.
> That quote clearly states if they start an insurrection, nothing about winning the election.
No it doesn’t. Read the first sentence of that quote. You said if it’s fair the republicans win. That means you will only accept the outcome of an election as fair if republicans win, you don’t support democracy, you want a one party state and you also said the republicans should overthrow democracy. You’re an authoritarian.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,157
@1,446,155 (G)
Right, but that's what I mean. No real alternative is allowed to run, only tiny parties that basically agree with the CCP on anything important.
Right, but that's what I mean. No real alternative is allowed to run, only tiny parties that basically agree with the CCP on anything important.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,158
@1,446,156 (G)
It's a prediction, nothing more. I never said a republican loss would be proof of fraud.
You're adding in your own words.
It's a prediction, nothing more. I never said a republican loss would be proof of fraud.
You're adding in your own words.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,160
@1,446,155 (G)
By the way, there are also multiple parties that can run in Russia. That doesn’t make Russia a democracy because every election is rigged in favor of United Russia to give United Russia a majority to keep Putin in power forever because it’s a fake democracy. You want a fake democracy like Russia. That’s what you’re suggesting.
By the way, there are also multiple parties that can run in Russia. That doesn’t make Russia a democracy because every election is rigged in favor of United Russia to give United Russia a majority to keep Putin in power forever because it’s a fake democracy. You want a fake democracy like Russia. That’s what you’re suggesting.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,161
@1,446,158 (B)
I’m not adding in my own words, you’re lying to me. That original comment you wrote did not have the word "prediction" in it.
I’m not adding in my own words, you’re lying to me. That original comment you wrote did not have the word "prediction" in it.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,162
@previous (G)
At worst that makes it vague, it doesn't back up what you said.
Instead of assuming when someone says something ambiguous, just ask.
At worst that makes it vague, it doesn't back up what you said.
Instead of assuming when someone says something ambiguous, just ask.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,163
These two old bozos will just be replaced by younger and more radical members of the Trump party.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,164
@1,446,162 (B)
What is vague about this?
@1,446,144 (B)
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
>
> If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
What is vague about this?
@1,446,051 (B)
> Voting rights act ruling
>
> USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
>
> supreme court is stacked
>
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
>
> good luck
You’re not making a case for democracy, you’re making a case for dictatorship and you’re not good at lying about it.
What is vague about this?
@1,446,144 (B)
> If everyone keeps playing by the rules, the Republicans win.
>
> If the democrats try an insurrection the Republicans would win that war.
What is vague about this?
@1,446,051 (B)
> Voting rights act ruling
>
> USPS wont deliver fake democrat ballot
>
> supreme court is stacked
>
> unitary executive and loyalist administration staff ready to overturn democracy of the degenerates cheat anyway
>
> good luck
You’re not making a case for democracy, you’re making a case for dictatorship and you’re not good at lying about it.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,165
@1,446,163 (H)
> These two old bozos will just be replaced by younger and more radical members of the Trump party.
Tbh I actually really love the United States, I just hate that so many Americans are so stupid that they’re destroying this country. Trump and his supporters are the most braindead people on the planet.
> These two old bozos will just be replaced by younger and more radical members of the Trump party.
Tbh I actually really love the United States, I just hate that so many Americans are so stupid that they’re destroying this country. Trump and his supporters are the most braindead people on the planet.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,166
@1,446,164 (G)
It lacks any words saying what you assumed.
You could always ask "are you saying [x]" instead of making an assumption and then acting like it's my responsibility to own the words you chose.
It lacks any words saying what you assumed.
You could always ask "are you saying [x]" instead of making an assumption and then acting like it's my responsibility to own the words you chose.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,167
Really the real thing is, and they’ll never admit to this, is they’re just racist and selfish and they feel like if they turn America into an autocracy they can restore white supremacy and then that will benefit them. But it won’t benefit working class whites, it will only benefit the oligarchs.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,169
@1,446,166 (B)
Well maybe I wouldn’t have to assume what you’re talking about when you tell such obvious lies and blatantly contradict yourself. If you’re lying to me all the time am I supposed to give you charity and assume you have good intentions? If you have good intentions, then why do you have to lie to me?
Well maybe I wouldn’t have to assume what you’re talking about when you tell such obvious lies and blatantly contradict yourself. If you’re lying to me all the time am I supposed to give you charity and assume you have good intentions? If you have good intentions, then why do you have to lie to me?
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,171
@previous (G)
It's not a lie, because I never said it.
I'm not contradicting myself, my actual words are contradicting the words you made up for me.
You don't have to give charity, I'm explaining that you can't find contradiction between my actual words and I'm not responsible for the stupid ideas you make up and attribute to me.
It's not a lie, because I never said it.
I'm not contradicting myself, my actual words are contradicting the words you made up for me.
You don't have to give charity, I'm explaining that you can't find contradiction between my actual words and I'm not responsible for the stupid ideas you make up and attribute to me.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,172
@previous (B)
I quoted you directly multiple times but now you "never said it" yet you don’t contradict yourself and don’t lie. Do you even have any intention to convince me of anything or is this whole thing just some stupid power play to stroke your ego because you feel good about being disrespectful by blatantly lying to people’s faces?
I quoted you directly multiple times but now you "never said it" yet you don’t contradict yourself and don’t lie. Do you even have any intention to convince me of anything or is this whole thing just some stupid power play to stroke your ego because you feel good about being disrespectful by blatantly lying to people’s faces?
Anonymous H replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,173
What an awful thread. Some of the most reddit takes I've seen in a while. I swear to God you people have to be AI or something. How can you possibly view the world in the most surface level way imaginable?
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,174
If every time you talk to me you say you never said every single thing you ever said, then why even talk to me at all? If I were to believe you and come to agree with you, it would require me to accept that you can never fucking make up your mind about anything you believe.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,175
@1,446,173 (H)
> What an awful thread. Some of the most reddit takes I've seen in a while. I swear to God you people have to be AI or something. How can you possibly view the world in the most surface level way imaginable?
Well, I have a theory about that. Google when lead pipes were banned. I’m not saying that’s why so many people seem to be so stupid, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something environmental. If you look into a graph of leaded gasoline and violent crime over time for example, chemicals can affect the intelligence and emotional state of people on a societal level. Something about all the chemicals and processed food, I could never narrow it down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some people are stupid because of the side effects of modern society.
> What an awful thread. Some of the most reddit takes I've seen in a while. I swear to God you people have to be AI or something. How can you possibly view the world in the most surface level way imaginable?
Well, I have a theory about that. Google when lead pipes were banned. I’m not saying that’s why so many people seem to be so stupid, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something environmental. If you look into a graph of leaded gasoline and violent crime over time for example, chemicals can affect the intelligence and emotional state of people on a societal level. Something about all the chemicals and processed food, I could never narrow it down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some people are stupid because of the side effects of modern society.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,176
@1,446,172 (G)
Nowhere in those quotes did I said that a republican loss would be proof of fraud. We've been over this.
Nowhere in those quotes did I said that a republican loss would be proof of fraud. We've been over this.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,177
@1,446,174 (G)
The answer is you stop strawmanning. I'm not playing along just because you've done it a lot.
The answer is you stop strawmanning. I'm not playing along just because you've done it a lot.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,178
The other thing is, intelligence can be inherited, but what people get wrong about that, is just because something is inherited doesn’t necessarily mean it’s genetic. Lead poisoning can be passed down because the fetus shares a blood supply with their mother. I wouldn’t be surprised if other chemicals can do something similar.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,179
@1,446,177 (B)
> The answer is you stop strawmanning. I'm not playing along just because you've done it a lot.
You must be a pathological liar. I swear every time I talk to you I wonder what mental disorder you must have.
> The answer is you stop strawmanning. I'm not playing along just because you've done it a lot.
You must be a pathological liar. I swear every time I talk to you I wonder what mental disorder you must have.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,190
@previous (G)
you can't quote where I said it, you can only point to ambiguity and your own assumptions.
you can't quote where I said it, you can only point to ambiguity and your own assumptions.