Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Yeah Biden won, no strings.

Countries around the world put in place public policy that had never been heard of prior , no strings.

Stop posting riddles! Say what you mean. You don't make sense. 

But I think it's a sign that you are a QAnoner. I think you're trying to hide it by not stating clearly what you mean, perhaps because if you did, no one would listen to you. Jon Letendre made that mistake, he already outed himself, but not you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A difference between paying a bribe and paying a fine is that a bribe is conditioned on the recipient performing an action, and charity is not. If I charitably pay your fine, you are free to thank me

Tony, this horse we children would ride out in the country belonged to that man I spoke of who went to school only through the third grade. He was the second husband of our mother. He was a cattle ran

I don't understand why you guys dump on Trump for not being a perfect defender of individual rights but hand-wave dismiss the Democrats and Biden's complete dismissal of individual rights as essential

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Stop posting riddles! Say what you mean. You don't make sense. 

But I think it's a sign that you are a QAnoner. I think you're trying to hide it by not stating clearly what you mean, perhaps because if you did, no one would listen to you. Jon Letendre made that mistake, he already outed himself, but not you.

I honestly don't know what you mean by a QAnoner.  I'm q-curious , non binary on the provenance of q's identity.

I read the posts at qanon.pub , I click on the hyper links and view that content. I'll do a little 'googling' on some people, places or things mentioned. I don't use twitter, but I end up reading threads thereon just because a lot of articles link to threads on Twitter.

I am a fan of the phenomenon , worldwide, because I think it galvanized attention aimed at 'combatting' the power and manipulations of the globalists/technocrats/kleptocrats/deep state operators, not necessarily that 'they' form a cohesive or homogeneous 'cabal', but 'their' efforts and goals align toward a broader degradation of the concept of the sanctity of individual rights. 

Do I believe pedophilia is the sine qua non defining characteristic and operative force behind the bad actors ? Not exactly, but I do not believe that those associated with those activities are in a minority that is with out significance. I do believe puppet masters recruit and entice with all manner of aberrant behaviors in order to compromise people and extend their power and influence.

And I think DJT is a patriot. In 2016 I hoped he was going to be a real wrecking ball crashing through DC , he fulfilled my hope in spades and now I honestly believe he is a patriot.

So am I an 'anoner' ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 4:48 AM, Eiuol said:

It's contradictory to claim that Trump has effectively opposed self-sacrifice but also claim that he has not effectively opposed self-sacrifice. You open up your post by saying that feelings and personality have triumphed. If they have triumphed, Trump has not been effective. If you mean to say that we ought to measure him according to the degree he has opposed self-sacrifice, sure, but the effectiveness is clearly not very much if he has lost an election and most of all failed to persuade someone like me that he really does oppose self-sacrifice.

 

You need to look at actions; demeanor and words count less - with politicians. One can sometimes assume that the glibber the words the politico spouts, the greater his deceptions. The very fact he lost an election is that (nowadays, more than ever) populaces need paternalist reassurance and comfort: children, I said. Fear is their motivation. A "leader" today has to be a major source of moral guidance when people don't think for themselves or have their own ethics. If watched carefully, Trump heavily promoted self-responsibility and self-reliance of Americans. (Most of his support base are that way inclined anyway). That some of his moves were statist was inevitable. Winding back statism requires statist intervention, I estimate, while seeming counter-intuitive . There will be no magic wand waved by any leader to make the dramatic leap to individual rights etc.. He/she can only do it incrementally, AND with the support of the majority. Considering that USA's hyper-billionaires are mostly ideological Lefties, having made their wealth by a semi-free system and now publicly renouncing capitalism, not for a long while.

If you were failed to be convinced (by Trump) I'm amazed you weren't persuaded by the dirty antics of the Democrats. By your enemies you shall be known - is a sensible adage. They have not missed a chance to take advantage of - to promote - the nation's pain and fear (the pandemic, racism, the riots), naturally blamed upon Trump, putting their power sickness before the plight of the American people and the Republic. 

THEY are the sacrificers. Mallory's "drooling beast" comes to mind. Your (planned) POTUS in waiting, Kamala Harris, said live on TV a month or two ago, quote: "the protests should continue" during and after the elections. Stated shamelessly (Leftists are never embarrassed) with her fake grin. Did that not stun you? This is what a possibly future president thinks of the rule of law and democratic elections, continued riots aimed to intimidate voters.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The mainstream Objectivists at ARI, serve as a repository for many fine educational tools, and have made them largely freely available.

 

For the educational tools I am thankful. When it comes to making real-world identifications and evaluations, the ARI people strike me as out of touch, in another sphere. They don't get out much, I fancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So am I an 'anoner' ?

 

Probably not then, but anyway, you said that you doubt Biden lost, then you said he did. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

He/she can only do it incrementally, AND with the support of the majority.

Sure. And he failed to accomplish this. If losing reelection can be a sign of "effectiveness", I really don't know what to say. By what standards should I judge him if not to say that he was ultimately ineffective because he could not even stop Biden. Fine, you like him, I'm not even trying to argue here that you shouldn't. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The very fact he lost an election is that (nowadays, more than ever) populaces need paternalist reassurance and comfort: children, I said.

He failed to fight against that. Just because you know why you lost the chess match doesn't mean that you played a good game. Just because you know why Trump lost the election doesn't mean that he did a good job at accomplishing what he wanted. For the sake of discussion, assume for a moment that I agree with you that Trump's message is at least decent. Why should I believe he was effective if he lost the election, given that he wasn't even able to get reelected?

By the way, I'm not about to entertain the notion that Trump didn't "really" lose the election, if that's where you're going with this.  

 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Probably not then, but anyway, you said that you doubt Biden lost, then you said he did. 

Sure. And he failed to accomplish this. If losing reelection can be a sign of "effectiveness", I really don't know what to say. By what standards should I judge him if not to say that he was ultimately ineffective because he could not even stop Biden. Fine, you like him, I'm not even trying to argue here that you shouldn't. 

He failed to fight against that. Just because you know why you lost the chess match doesn't mean that you played a good game. Just because you know why Trump lost the election doesn't mean that he did a good job at accomplishing what he wanted. For the sake of discussion, assume for a moment that I agree with you that Trump's message is at least decent. Why should I believe he was effective if he lost the election, given that he wasn't even able to get reelected?

By the way, I'm not about to entertain the notion that Trump didn't "really" lose the election, if that's where you're going with this.  

 

 

Here's an example of presuming the president, any leader, has to do it all himself, as though objective thinkers can't make up their own minds. It is for the informed, realistic and thoughtful voter to balance a leader's worth - by his acts, I repeat - not for him to constantly blow his own horn (which he sure did some of) and persuade you. The reasons he lost are many, not all to do with him - like +/-90% of the propagandist arm of the Democrats, the media, against him every moment for four straight years.  In that light, it's incredible how well Trump the outsider DID do. And you surely know that if held one year earlier, at the peak of the economy and employment, he would have won handily. That's how fickle and short-term, unprincipled and anti-conceptual,  many people 'think'. They got what they deserve, ultimately.  Those who didn't deserve a Leftist/nanny state, I reserve my sympathy for.

I made and intended no implication of him not "really" losing the election. You appear sometimes to find nuances where there aren't any.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

. Fine, you like him, I'm not even trying to argue here that you shouldn't.  

 

 

This needs a comment. I have never accepted the false, emotionalist, alternative which has dogged the Trump presidency. Why must I "like" him - or hate him? How about I approve of, in general and in essence, what he did and tried to do for the USA and for freedom lovers everywhere? Some time prior to Trump's arrival I became aware of some anti-American, anti-individualist nastiness stirring in the US. That he hated its proponents, with "malice", as was remarked, is simply justice to them.

Personalities are irrelevant. It's not as if I want to take him home to meet the folks.

That's a reminder of the infamous words by Journo: "As an expert in Ayn Rand's philosophy I can state that she would have detested Donald Trump".

Wow.

How shallow does he think Rand was, I ask? That she would assess the president on her feelings, aesthetic and otherwise, like he has done?

Taken as a whole, her entire philosophy, her never to be equalled comprehensive grasp of reality and contexts, her often accuracy of a person's inner character, her admiration for America and its productivity, her insight into the American sense of life, her disgust with altruism and socialism, and ask yourself honestly, Elan: whom do you think Rand would have voted for?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Trump won the election, I doubt he lost any support among his 'base' and seemed to have garnered more support from parts of the electorate that voted against him in 2016. I believe there is a concerted effort between the establishment/deep state/media/big tech to remove Trump and install Biden. I think the pandemic provided 'them' opportunity to increase the level of chicanery in the way the election was carried out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

How about I approve of, in general and in essence, what he did and tried to do for the USA and for freedom lovers everywhere?

You are really reading into this. This quote is what I meant by "like" - you like what he does. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about liking his personality. Fine, fix the sentence to say "you approve of him", which is exactly what I was saying. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

That's a reminder of the infamous words by Journo: "As an expert in Ayn Rand's philosophy I can state that she would have detested Donald Trump".

It's like this sentence. I'm really surprised that you don't know that "detested" means in this context "would have tremendously disapproved of the actions and/or philosophy of this person". 

So let's try again. Assuming I liked (yes, I'm using that word again, because you should understand now) Trump, by what standard could I even judge him as successful, given that he lost the election?

 

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I believe there is a concerted effort between the establishment/deep state/media/big tech to remove Trump and install Biden. I think the pandemic provided 'them' opportunity to increase the level of chicanery in the way the election was carried out. 

Okay, I wish we had a label that said "fringe nutjobs, do not feed". If you think this about Biden, then on the face of it, you should think this about all presidents since Kennedy. Including Trump. It's strange to think that Trump isn't part of "big media" and the criminal establishment (if you're ready to believe that there was a concerted effort, it's even less of a stretch to say that he has been part of organized crime for most of his career).

Besides, this means that again, Trump was ineffective at fighting back. He failed. If he didn't "really" lose, he clearly lost in the final stretch when it came to stopping cheating. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

        

 

 

     
    3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

    I believe there is a concerted effort between the establishment/deep state/media/big tech to remove Trump and install Biden. I think the pandemic provided 'them' opportunity to increase the level of chicanery in the way the election was carried out.

Okay, I wish we had a label that said "fringe nutjobs, do not feed".

 

 

ok, Jack, I'll go on hunger strike

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

So let's try again. Assuming I liked (yes, I'm using that word again, because you should understand now) Trump, by what standard could I even judge him as successful, given that he lost the election?

 

 

You are not getting the point. One man can't go it alone. What's crucial is to understand that a Leader ultimately won't achieve any more than the will of the populace allows him. Or - can - achieve what the majority subjectively wish for - or rationally want.

In these Libertarian circles one often hears of the Big State and dictators and other tyrants and hears little of the necessary involvement (the minds) of the governed. Libertarians mostly appear to only see and worry about the top-down power and the almost mystically-controlling figures that -apparently- hypnotize the innocent masses into obedience, e.g. Hitler, Stalin memes .

Any free nation or dictatorship (etc.) has to have the agreement and/or collusion of many/most of the people. In order to begin and be sustained.

If one holds the view I think is perfectly valid, that Trump was essentially moving the US towards more individual  freedom while the Democrats will certainly move it in the opposite direction, the outcome of this election proves what we already know about human nature: Many people, now half of the USA, wouldn't want freedom if it were given to them, it scares them.

That is how and why Trump lost. Actually, he was too "successful". His premises were understood by opponents of freedom.

Conversely what many desperately seek more than ever is moral conformism: control of the actions and minds over the Other, the rest of the global populace, particularly independent minds ... using the agency of big governments to enforce their will. And of course the state gladly complies to increase its powers.

Therefore, the total effect is what the majority wants, and they as individuals are personally responsible for the good or bad that ensues.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

H.L. Mencken: Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol, summing up: we here are well-used to debating "the initiation of force" by governments, the final guns to our heads, but largely unspoken is that the real tyrant is often one's fellow citizen, the original cause of such force. A danger your Founders were acutely aware of. That is why some of us outside look to the USA. For liberty from the state - and freedom from others.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

That is how and why Trump lost. Actually, he was too "successful". His premises were understood by opponents of freedom.

Yup. Failure to succeed, ultimately not effective enough. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What's crucial is to understand that a Leader ultimately won't achieve any more than the will of the populace allows him.

Meaning that effective leaders are good at persuasion. Winning an election is about persuading a populace. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Many people, now half of the USA, wouldn't want freedom if it were given to them, it scares them.

Don't say things like this when you told me before that you had opportunity to move to the US and chose not to. I really recommend living here before you go on talking about what people in the US want or are afraid of. You have news reports, that's about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "coup" has been used in this thread, and though Eiuol misunderstood its intended meaning, the reference was: that Biden, et al., were in the process of attempting a coup.

This is incredible. We may well be witnessing a coup-in-progress, in fact (though I continue to hold out hope that it isn't so), but not one perpetrated by Biden.

On 11/18/2020 at 5:10 AM, tadmjones said:

I believe Trump won the election, I doubt he lost any support among his 'base' and seemed to have garnered more support from parts of the electorate that voted against him in 2016. I believe there is a concerted effort between the establishment/deep state/media/big tech to remove Trump and install Biden. I think the pandemic provided 'them' opportunity to increase the level of chicanery in the way the election was carried out. 

tad, we've had productive discussions here before -- though it's been a while since we've spoken at all. I can't make you listen to me, but I need to say this to you:

You are mistaken. Trump did not win this election. Whatever you believe about Trump's level of support, Biden garnered both 1) more votes, total; and 2) more votes in the specific states necessary to garner sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency.

There is no conspiracy to "remove Trump and install Biden." That you believe there is suggests that you are getting your information from sources that are lying to you. They are lying to you intentionally and attempting to manipulate you for their own ends. They cannot be trusted.

Every credible source that has examined the election has determined that there is/was no particular "chicanery" afoot in voting, vote collecting or tabulation. Though there are always errors in such a massive undertaking, and even isolated acts of malfeasance, there is no credible evidence for any widespread fraud, or anything of such significance that it would change the actual outcome.

The people who claim to have evidence to the contrary are lying. Their "evidence" is itself fraudulent. They are manufacturing or misinterpreting things in a deliberate attempt to deceive you and others. By way of contrast, people of conscience (representing "both sides of the aisle") have worked hard on multiple levels to ensure the fairness of the democratic process that Trump and his team are currently attempting to undermine and subvert.

You are being used.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites

The word you are looking for is not "coup" but "putsch," although a putsch is a specific type of coup.

Almost all of the media are unreliable at this point. They report judgments and opinions as if they were facts. They can't report anything Trump or his team says without calling them "lies," for example, and instead of proof that they are lies, they bring out the statements of other people who could just as easily be lying as Trump. Sometimes they don't bring out any proof at all, they just assert "lies."

Giuliani and Powell have made a number of disturbing accusations (Zero Hedge again) and I think those allegations ought to be investigated. They've also taken the risk of being sued for defamation by Dominion, and I think they would have been aware of that risk.

The prevailing opinion in the media seems to be that anybody disputing the integrity of the election should simply be silenced, and that actually doing any investigation would be wrong because investigation wrongfully increases the credibility of the accusers. However, such a policy would be a blank check for anybody who really does want an election, past or future, to be disrupted. (This is also the exact opposite of the policy toward Judge Kavanaugh, or toward the Steele dossier, which was that any accusation should be believed without being investigated. Seems like it's wrong to investigate anything anymore -- you're supposed to just decide on the basis of what you already believe.)

I've seen something else disturbing, and that is the rise of ad hominem in the culture at large. It seems like people are saying that "before you consider whether a statement is true or false, you should consider its source," which is like requiring an appeal to authority, or an ad hominem. This is wrong. The truth or falsity of a statement should be determined by reference to reality and not by reference to the person making the statement, and not by reference to the personality or history of that person, or anything else about them.

For a lot of people this election wasn't about the policies that would be brought into effect by the election of Trump or Biden -- it was a referendum on Trump's personality. Even there, I'm not so sure it was a referendum on his actual personality so much as his personality as portrayed by the press. But that's only one example of the ad hominem phenomenon I'm seeing.

I cannot prove or disprove that the election was stolen away from Trump. I don't have access to the voting machines or the paper ballots, and I'm not sure I have the skill to make a determination, and I probably wouldn't have time to personally review all the evidence myself, anyway. Some of the evidence may no longer exist (e.g., if you update a count in a computer, the old count would be overwritten.) So I don't know. But this is why an impartial investigation has to be done. Judges should have a chance to look at the evidence and render a verdict, and they should explain on paper why they reached the verdict they did, and it should be based on evidence. I'd like to be able to read that verdict, where they'd describe the actual state of the evidence and the conclusions it led them to.

If they are not allowed to do the necessary investigation, or if evidence is ignored, that makes me very suspicious.

If they rely on experts, then those experts, in turn, should cite evidence, rather than just rendering their opinions.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Judges should have a chance to look at the evidence and render a verdict [...]

They have. I mean, you have a point about the media, the media has always been that way. But people have looked at the alleged evidence. 

14 minutes ago, necrovore said:

I don't have access to the voting machines or the paper ballots, and I'm not sure I have the skill to make a determination, and I probably wouldn't have time to personally review all the evidence myself, anyway

This just makes it sound like you don't trust anything anyone says unless you can literally evaluate all the evidence yourself. You could simply say "there is no reasonable reason to say that the election was stolen", particularly because the majority of claims have been rejected by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This just makes it sound like you don't trust anything anyone says unless you can literally evaluate all the evidence yourself.

It would be sufficient to read judges' rulings where they describe the evidence and their evaluation of it.

My point is that this is what judges and courts are for. They can resolve all these endless doubts by looking at the evidence and writing a ruling based on it.

I don't think the Dominion Voting thing has come up before a judge yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, necrovore said:

It would be sufficient to read judges' rulings where they describe the evidence and their evaluation of it.

My point is that this is what judges and courts are for. They can resolve all these endless doubts by looking at the evidence and writing a ruling based on it.

I don't think the Dominion Voting thing has come up before a judge yet.

Judges have been making rulings on the matters brought before their courts, in due course. Not all of the allegations made by the Trump team in the press have also been filed as legal matters. Why wouldn't they pursue legal remedies for these other allegations, for which they supposedly have evidence? Why only pursue smaller and more technical matters publicly (and lose, and lose, and lose again), instead of submit their evidence to the sort of scrutiny you indicate you would prefer? My best guess is that they don't want their "evidence" scrutinized.

In any event, even a lay person observing all of the maneuvering, wrangling, claims, etc., can eventually come to conclusions on the matter as a whole. Can we say that there wasn't some vast conspiracy to steal the election from Trump? Yes. More people voted for Biden, and that's the extent of the conspiracy. But all of the election officials and federal watchdogs and recounts and audits and rulings in the world will not "resolve all the endless doubts" for people who are committed to Trump, Giuliani, etc., because they are in the business of creating doubt, not resolving it. The doubt is the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, necrovore said:

My point is that this is what judges and courts are for. They can resolve all these endless doubts by looking at the evidence and writing a ruling based on it.

Perfectly sensible. But your post gives off vibes of "let's engage in every what-if possible before we come to a conclusion." This is in combination with our discussion about statistics, where all you need to warrant investigation is the slightest whiff of doubt. 

I'm really totally fine with you saying that any errors in election procedures should be remedied. Alleged evidence has been rejected as not worth pursuing (failing to meet standards of evidence that warrant the court to spend time), and any evidence that is credible is not enough to change the election outcome. You can still say that Biden won without any doubt. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DA

I feel duped. From now on I’ll only trust the credible sources , I almost fell for the disinformation on Hunter Biden too. All that crap just to denigrate the most honorable majority vote getter, that extremely capable salt of the earth humble public servant. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

DA

I feel duped. From now on I’ll only trust the credible sources , I almost fell for the disinformation on Hunter Biden too. All that crap just to denigrate the most honorable majority vote getter, that extremely capable salt of the earth humble public servant.


Recognizing that the election was fair has nothing to do with one's feelings about Biden or Trump, generally. Christopher Krebs, of Trump's Homeland Security, for instance, said that "59 election security experts all agree, 'in every case of which we are aware, these claims (of fraud) either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.'"

For this, Trump had him fired. Yes, they are attempting to dupe you and silence the people who would tell you the truth. It would be better if you trusted credible sources, instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tucker Carlson wants to see the evidence, too.

Much has been said about our "cultural institutions" and whether we can trust them. They used to be more trustworthy, but they have been taken over by the left. This was not a sudden thing, either; it has been going on for long enough that Ayn Rand was aware of it.

The way such institutions should earn trust is by reference to reality. That way, at least some people can independently verify what the institutions are saying (and also, such an institution has nothing to fear from free speech). When institutions stop making reference to reality, and start making reference to leftist theories instead, they lose their credibility, except with people on the left who believe those theories. But there are still some who rely on those institutions not because they agree with leftist theory but because there doesn't seem to be any alternative. Also, there are some organizations such as The New York Times which have been taken over by "woke" leftists but are still coasting on old reputations based on the good things they stopped doing years ago.

Unfortunately, the right is not really in a position to create credible alternative cultural institutions. People on the right often don't reference reality, either; they're basically dominated by people who think that Noah's Ark was literally true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. So all they create are churches and religious universities. Such people have long distrusted cultural institutions, but for the wrong reasons; by doing so, they created an opening that the left was able to exploit, and they are incapable of making trustworthy cultural institutions of their own. They have no credibility except among people who believe as they do.

(The Objective Standard published something a while back to the effect that people on the right need to anchor their arguments in reality instead of faith, so that people who do not share their faith would be able to agree with them. However, I think the people on the right are unwilling to do that; they believe that certain kinds of questions should be the domain of faith alone, and that reason should be rejected for those questions even when it reaches the same conclusion, because if you start using reason instead of faith then you end up using reason more and more, and faith less and less, until you end up with something like... Ayn Rand!)

Because of both right and left, I'm reluctant to trust someone merely because they are in a position of authority. I want to see their evidence.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

But all of the election officials and federal watchdogs and recounts and audits and rulings in the world will not "resolve all the endless doubts" for people who are committed to Trump, Giuliani, etc., because they are in the business of creating doubt, not resolving it. The doubt is the point.

There is a "put up or shut up" aspect to it, which I think is what Tucker Carlson is saying, also.

(However, I think that the UFOs Tucker Carlson mentions are long past that point and that they are really nothing but lens flare and radar echoes.)

I just don't see what the point would be of creating doubt, if they don't have the evidence to maintain it. Without evidence the doubt will collapse.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

This is incredible. We may well be witnessing a coup-in-progress, in fact (though I continue to hold out hope that it isn't so), but not one perpetrated by Biden.

So, to be explicit, you believe Trump is attempting a coup. I actually wish this were true to keep Biden and the evil Left out of power, but the truth is Trump doesn't have the balls to actually do this. Therefore it, sadly, won't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...