The Democrats asked their candidate to step aside. Now it's the Republicans' turn.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
On behalf of republicans, a group I’m no longer a member of, we respectfully decline.
Many libs have been having a meltdown all over sm and in the media. The reason is that they are disingenuous or uninformed and don't realize that it is a work produced by The Heritage Foundation, a "thinktank" with a rep of being pretty far to the right. There has been an attempt to reassign this to Trump as his not so super secret plan. Just because Trump has conservative elements and supports many of the same concepts, it doesn't mean that this thing is "his" plan or that he agrees with its specifics. And indeed, some of the people who either supported Trump, support Trump, or worked for Trump previously are involved heavily with The Heritage Foundation. But it bears repeating that such an association does not make it Trump's plan. However, the Biden/Harris campaign has been pushing this fiction aggressively and even started their own web link to make such claims.
https://joebiden.com/project2025/
Indeed, even our own resident DNC talking point parrot has tried to push this narrative here for us when he posted about it. Typical smear scenario.
Nice misdirection regarding the actual "issue to anyone on the right." Joe's age was never really the issue - unless you are an ageist. The problem was two separate issues. One, Joe's mental status has been an issue for years and, sadly, it has apparently accelerated in the last year or so. Two, Joe has been in DC telling us he was gonna "solve" our problems for more time than most people have been alive.
It's no different from the absurdity of today's events. The duly elected Democratic primary winner has been forced by the party and others to reject the election results of the voters due to polling data and the fallout therefrom. Either that, or he can't continue for the remainder of his term. He doesn't get it both ways.
Nah, I think it's because after only a year into his first term in office Trump and his administration had adopted nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from The Heritage Foundation, then called "Mandate for Leadership." We should expect the same IF he were to win again.
You can read all about it here:
Mandate for Leadership: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration
The Heritage Foundation is publishing a three-part Mandate for Leadership Series of documents over the course of 2016. Each document educates the American public, specifically including Congress, the new American President, and the new President’s team. All three parts deliver a clear, unified...
www.heritage.org
Obviously the one-third not adopted by the Administration was the part about balancing the budget.
Otherwise, it contained some guidelines you might expect such as Never Tell the Truth and Deny the Election Results in 2020 if Things Don't Go Your Way.
Last edited:
longest answer you’ve put out yet, so you must be thinking about it.
as far as pegging, just trying to speak to your county, sorry if i misspoke
i personally think the money and support is going to pour in now…the race is on, imo.
The first poll numbers will be interesting. If she jumps in within the margin of error then it’s game on for sure. Then it’s just a matter of seeing how people react to finding out who she is. Cause to be honest I don’t think many people know. I don’t know much about her. Or maybe i did and forgot. Anyway I’m sure the trump party will educate us on her.
Last edited:
So the plan is to run a low charisma candidate with a law background and a history of corruption.
Could be 2016 all over again.
Could be 2016 all over again.
Clearly, you either didn't understand my previous post on this or you are ignoring it. Your link has one little problem. Once again, it's from The Heritage Foundation. Contrary to what you've been told by your pundits, that's not Trump.You can read all about it here:
Mandate for Leadership: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration
The Heritage Foundation is publishing a three-part Mandate for Leadership Series of documents over the course of 2016. Each document educates the American public, specifically including Congress, the new American President, and the new President’s team. All three parts deliver a clear, unified...
Obviously the one-third not adopted by the Administration was the part about balancing the budget.
Otherwise, it contained some guidelines you might expect such as Never Tell the Truth and Deny the Election Results in 2020 if Things Don't Go Your Way.
And just because there are consistencies between them both, it doesn't make them the same or count as one adopting the other. For example, I love the University of North Carolina and pull for it's sports teams like a madman. Does that mean I endorse their crazy, liberal, progressive faculty and leadership including people like the former employee who was the fiction author of something called The 1619 Project? You probably know the answer.
Yeah, that's right. The man you hate buttered both sides. Why? Because it was smart business and it gives him insight into the whores that they are (particularly the payee of that check). The challenge is resisting the temptation to become full on himself. The difference, unlike Joe or Kamala (as far as I know), is that he hasn't been solely reliant on the government dole his entire career.
They're obviously different entities but when you adopt 2/3 of someone's recommendations within the first year of your presidency, as Trump did, I would say you're pretty much working hand in hand. My point was we might oughta expect more of the same if Trump gets a second crack at the White House.
But what if the 2/3rds adopted were the good parts and the 1/3rd left out were the bad parts? That’s good, right?
But it's not, unless you are just wanting to take that perspective.
Suppose that an organization was as completely anti-abortion as one could be.
A candidate came out with a specific policy on abortion saying that he or she felt it was permissible during the first trimester, but not during the second or third. So, literally they are endorsing 2/3's of the organization's stance.
That means they are "pretty much working hand in hand"???? The candidate's positions matter (and yes, past history indicates what those are), not an organization's position that the opposing candidate/party claims is one's position.
Sooooo what?
If Trump has chicken for lunch today, does that mean he can't have beef for dinner? Or that the beef lobby should be mad at him from lunch until dinner?
Apparently there are reports this morning of Biden asking his team why they cancelled his campaign stops.
Don't put away those "let's go Brandon" flags just yet, there's still 6 months left to impeach Biden for ..... something.
Fake news. They've still got him reporting each day to the "oval office" built into the basement of the Rehoboth Beach home. Telling him he's permanently contagious with covid and can't leave the WH.
Well, If anybody knows anything about whores Trump sure does. You guys are embarrassing yourself. Let them all be judged by their words and their actions. They don't need us trying to excuse them for what they said or what they did . They are grown people.
Last edited:
Where is PawPaw? Why haven’t we seen him? Why would a sitting President end his reelection campaign without speaking to the nation after stubbornly and steadfastly declaring he was running for reelection?
Meanwhile . . .
Oh, there Trump is. I've seen plenty of him. But that wasn't my question.
Where is Joe Biden and why haven't we heard from him? As the sitting President, it's a pretty big deal to decide to not move forward with a reelection campaign. Such a big deal that 99 out of 100 people would feel obligated to get in front of the nation and let them know straight from your mouth why you have made this choice. Is that not odd to you?
I don't know what an article of succession is, but I will remind you that we are discussing why the Civil War was fought and not why the Confederate States seceded. If you want to discuss why the Conferate States seceded we can do that too, but I can save you some trouble and stop you from continuing to be a numbskull, and not contest whatsoever that slavery was a major...but not the only...issue at hand in that secession.
I can also possibly save you some trouble and inform you that the Confederate States could have peacefully seceded with no hostilities at all, but Lincoln did not want to allow that. THAT is why the war was fought. It was NOT fought to end slavery and Lincoln is plainly on record making that perfectly clear. He waged war in order to preserve the Union and nothing else, and he said so. He himself SAID he was not fighting to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. What was in the Articles of Secession of various States is completely immaterial in this regard.
With very little trouble you can verify the above via the internet and other sources of info.
Suppose there was no slavery and the Confederate States seceded because of other political and cultural and economic reasons (which is partly true). There would still have been a war because the war would have been fought in order to bring the seceding States back into the Union, and not to end slavery that didn't exist.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery. There did not have to be a war. The seceding States had every right to withdraw because the Union pact did not forbid doing so. At that time, States were actually considered sovereign and not in name only. As a sovereign entity, a State was not beholden to Union requirements if it was no longer part of the Union.
If you want to get technical, it is true that Northern politicians quickly pushed through such a mandate that no State could withdraw, but that was enacted only after secession had begun; so to the seceding States it was meaningless.
