djsdawg
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 40320 |
| Registered on: | 4/12/2015 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Virginia Democrats
Posted by djsdawg on 1/22/26 at 5:13 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The real enemy" is Big Government and the erosion of citizen's protections against it. The foundation of law in this country.
Look at this guy trying to act as if the left isn’t a real enemy.
0
How dare you emotionally attack Minnesota’s state rights to act a fool!
-slow
-slow
It’s not failed, it’s just temporarily delayed
quote:
A judge citing the constitution so that the left can gain power. “But this is what they’d do to you if we didn’t have the constitution” Lmao I’m sure SFP will be all over this.
Will he be in 2 Threads making the same nonsensical posts about this?
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/22/26 at 7:00 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
and those stolen elections lead to a mountain of monetary frauds that is driving our nation toward bankruptcy.
Principled States are well within their rights to engage in widespread federal fraud, and it’s irrational and emotional to point that out. Constitution over country, so he believes.
re: Josh Sargent
Posted by djsdawg on 1/22/26 at 12:32 am to southpawcock
Dude ruined his legacy and reputation
quote:
Forego the law to save the nation. Ah yes, that refrain has never been used in history.
Desperate times due to an emboldened communist party.
quote:
We should probably just jail everyone to ensure no one else gets raped or murdered
Crime is inherent in a population. The goal is to reduce it by ensuring no illegal immigrant commits crime ITC.
re: election odds show the Dems with 70% + chance to win House in '26 - will Trump do rallies?
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 10:47 pm to prplngldtigr
quote:
Are independents mostly communist or just stupid?
Stupid. Many wanted deportation, but now that they see it happen, they cant handle it.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 10:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Uh, let's revisit the question (that you didn't answer)
They can already achieve this without needing precedent, so its an irrelevant question.
The point is to keep them from being in position to make a death blow like this.
Permitting widespread cheating helps put them in such a position to make the death blow.
Survival > "muh principles"
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 9:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're just confirming he's providing a fear-based stance that is antithetical to his stated principles. You're proving my point.
Well, the fear is valid, and you havent disputed this reality.
quote:
The threats are what the Left does with new power/authority.
They dont need Trump to do this for them to do this, so this is flawed reasoning. The point is to keep them from being able to do this. Our fate depends on this.
Survival is far more important than "muh principles".
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 9:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
States maintain the authority to act independently as little experiments of democracy as they were intended. Also, if you don't like how a state regulates elections (or how it taxes, regulates behaviors, etc.) you can move to a state with more palatable policies. You can't do this with a federal takeover.
This is yet another flaw of the set up: It allows for cheaters to flourish, take over, and destroy. This is what you support.
There is no valid selling point for making bad moves that prohibit use of ID and in person voting.
Since it only impacts the presidential election, moving out of a bad state would make zero sense.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He was not, as his priorities were in direct conflict. He said he supports states rights and then took a position specifically antithetical to states rights.
One superseded the other.
The fate of our nation matters more than "muh principles".
This is why its irrational to ignore legitimate threats. You refuse to acknowledge the threats because "muh emotions".
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 9:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So you believe it is wise to permit the next Democratic government to make it illegal for any state to require ID and enact universal mail in voting, and no state may protest?
What is the selling point for this?
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 8:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He already showed he's arguing his own purported stance. He has to rectify this first before a anything thereafter has value to address. He can't and won't.
He was very clear about what he prioritizes, and he doesnt need to rectify anything else for his points to be validated.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what, exactly is the selling point (try selling it without referencing the threat of DEMs/leftists and focus on the policies themselves).
The obvious selling point is establishing more secure and fair standards for federal elections.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 7:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if you reject rationality and principles for emotional thinking that leads you anywhere your feelings say to.
Its ILLIGOGICAL and IRRATIONAL to ignore an obvious threat.
Its PRINCIPLED to fight against an obvious threat.
Its DUMB to cut off your nose to spite your face because "muh principles".
Trying to downplay that as "emotional thinking" is nonsensical.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 6:58 pm to TheOtherWhiteMeat
quote:
I don't know why you're engaging with him (SFP). Or why anyone does. You ripped him a new butthole earlier and he ignored about 80% of that asswhooping. He's simply a disruptor, nothing more, he couldn't care less if he's right or wrong on any issue.
Yep. His "ignore the obvious threat because its emotional to acknowledge it" is extremely nonsensical.
quote:
What could possibly go wrong?
Anything is better than being raped and murdered, not that you care about that stuff
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 4:09 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
But you lend your intelligence to support stupid ideas.
You absolutely KNOW the elections have been subject to massive fraud for the past half century at least. Yet you smugly hide behind your facade of "no evidence" == which only means that those doing the 'stealing' are not interested in 'finding evidence.
Of course he deflected from this point. The stupid idea is allowing crooked states to allow fraud in federal elections.
The consequences to liberal cheating are obvious, yet he doesnt care because of an irrational commitment to "muh integrity" over the future of our nation.
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted by djsdawg on 1/21/26 at 4:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Spotting out the hypocrisy and destruction of language is really easy for me, actually.
Our interactions have nothing to do with this.
quote:
Emotional argument that ignores principle to combat Republican values (states rights). Literally the leftist playbook
You completely avoided the point being made.
quote:
emotional-based arguments that ignore logic, facts, and history.
Securing federal elections from liberal fraud isnt illogical. What an absurd claim.
Popular
40
