• =?UTF-8?Q?The=20time=20is=20coming=20=E2=80=9Cto=20again?= =?UTF-8?Q?=2

    From xyzzy@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 11 21:52:27 2022
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From floaterjr@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Mon Apr 11 15:39:36 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:52:30 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie
    https://tenor.com/view/sleepy-joe-gif-18788645

    How interesting

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The NOTBCS Guy@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 11 19:14:56 2022
    But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny RSFCootball@21:1/5 to The NOTBCS Guy on Mon Apr 11 19:30:48 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:14:58 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
    But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

    Dude has had lots of careers — real estate developer, hospitality, tv star, golf course manager, university founder, us president, etc. — but the one common denominator is selling shit with his name on it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Falkner@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Mon Apr 11 21:58:53 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:52:30 PM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    One of the reasons I had to have one of my LGBTQ friends explain to me why the second set of gas station stickers showing up is offensive.

    It shows Putin shirtless on a horse, with a shirtless representation of Trump behind him!

    Mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Falkner@21:1/5 to The NOTBCS Guy on Mon Apr 11 22:06:14 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
    But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

    Basically. The purge of non-loyalists to Trump is already beginning.

    I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020 election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress, succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember, the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected
    member of the House!), and daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election. Simple majority would
    be required, you're not impeaching someone you never believed President.

    (This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2 Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks Roberts is reliable.)

    Mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The NOTBCS Guy@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 12 07:05:16 2022
    I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020 election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress, succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember, the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected
    member of the House!), and daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election. Simple majority would be
    required, you're not impeaching someone you never believed President.

    (This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2 Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks Roberts is reliable.)

    To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just two small problems."
    First, that Congressional resolution still has to be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both, needed to override the veto.
    Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.

    If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that would probably spark a second
    Civil War, which lasts just long enough for everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves with petty details.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From xyzzy@21:1/5 to The NOTBCS Guy on Tue Apr 12 14:11:14 2022
    The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:
    I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020
    election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress,
    succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember,
    the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected member of the House!), and
    daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q
    non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional
    nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election.
    Simple majority would be required, you're not impeaching someone you
    never believed President.

    (This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice
    to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2
    Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks
    Roberts is reliable.)

    To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just
    two small problems."
    First, that Congressional resolution still has to
    be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have
    either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both,
    needed to override the veto.
    Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.

    If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of
    the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that would probably spark a second Civil War, which lasts just long enough for everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves with petty details.


    Don’t forget who you’re replying to here.

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Emperor Wonko the Sane@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Tue Apr 12 08:08:56 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie

    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their
    weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

    Doug

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny RSFCootball@21:1/5 to Emperor Wonko the Sane on Tue Apr 12 09:25:26 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie
    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their
    weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

    Doug

    I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election or
    directly involved trump himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Ramon@21:1/5 to Johnny RSFCootball on Tue Apr 12 10:09:46 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
    liberal personality.” — Altie
    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their
    weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

    Doug
    I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election
    or directly involved trump himself.

    Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Falkner@21:1/5 to The NOTBCS Guy on Tue Apr 12 15:30:49 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

    To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just two small problems."
    First, that Congressional resolution still has to be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both, needed to override the veto.

    This is why you get the Supreme Court involved.

    Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.

    If I only had that faith.

    If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that would probably spark a second
    Civil War, which lasts just long enough for everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves with petty details.

    Let's put it this way -- that's probably Plan B at this point. I don't think a lot of the Q types in this country think we have three more years, even with both houses of Congress come next January.

    Mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny RSFCootball@21:1/5 to Eric Ramon on Tue Apr 12 18:54:59 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
    liberal personality.” — Altie
    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in
    their weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

    Doug
    I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election
    or directly involved trump himself.
    Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

    I didn’t disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of people that believed that there were Russian activities worth investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and fully capable of losing the election on her
    own (especially considering our election system).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From xyzzy@21:1/5 to Johnny RSFCootball on Wed Apr 13 11:32:29 2022
    Johnny RSFCootball <1jay1miller1970@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s!&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww


    --
    I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, >>>>> liberal personality.  Altie
    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You
    think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit,
    those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. >>>> We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost
    because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the
    real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

    Doug
    I bet a lot of the Russia! Russia! Russia! people also thought that
    Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt
    that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those
    activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself. >> Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She
    had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite
    capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

    I didnt disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of people that believed that there were Russian activities worth
    investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and fully capable of losing the election on her own (especially considering
    our election system).

    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
    2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

    --
    “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From TE@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Wed Apr 13 18:40:34 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:32:33 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:

    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
    campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

    Trump was tougher on Russia than both Obama and Biden.

    After taking office, Biden immediately began enriching Russia and their allies while weakening the US.

    -TE

    "Shit is so fake that the minute an outsider took office we got cheap gas, cheap
    food, became energy independent, no wars and focused on our country’s own issues. Establishment hacks get back in and we have inflation, medical tyranny,
    world war 3, need to take a mortgage for gas."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From unclejr@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 13 20:08:35 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:40:36 PM UTC-5, TE wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:32:33 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:

    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
    campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
    his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
    Trump was tougher on Russia than both Obama and Biden.

    After taking office, Biden immediately began enriching Russia and their allies
    while weakening the US.

    -TE

    "Shit is so fake that the minute an outsider took office we got cheap gas, cheap
    food, became energy independent, no wars and focused on our country’s own issues. Establishment hacks get back in and we have inflation, medical tyranny,
    world war 3, need to take a mortgage for gas."

    You're a full-blown QAnon Trumper now? Yikes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Emperor Wonko the Sane@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Thu Apr 14 07:26:10 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Johnny RSFCootball <1jay1mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
    Quoted from Russian state TV

    https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s!&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww


    --
    I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, >>>>> liberal personality. Altie
    Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You >>>> think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, >>>> those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. >>>> We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."

    It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost >>>> because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the
    real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign. >>>>
    Doug
    I bet a lot of the Russia! Russia! Russia! people also thought that
    Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt >>> that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those
    activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.
    Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She >> had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite
    capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

    I didn t disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of people that believed that there were Russian activities worth investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and fully capable of losing the election on her own (especially considering our election system).
    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
    campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
    --

    You mean like the special prosecutor?

    Doug

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Ramon@21:1/5 to xyzzy on Thu Apr 14 10:55:06 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 4:32:33 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:

    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
    campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
    --

    ok, I can agree with this.

    As for Trump's Presidency, I think it fell apart when he blew a gasket at the report of the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From TE@21:1/5 to Eric Ramon on Thu Apr 14 14:49:44 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:55:08 PM UTC-4, Eric Ramon wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 4:32:33 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:

    Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
    campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

    Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
    his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

    ok, I can agree with this.

    As for Trump's Presidency, I think it fell apart when he blew a gasket at the report of the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

    Amen. Peace and prosperity are over-rated. Things are now back
    to normal.

    -TE

    Those currently in power insist on masking, but don’t wear masks. They claim the seas are rising and
    build mansions on the shore. They abhor the expenditure of fossil fuels and fly exclusively in private
    jets. And all the while half of the country will not name the disease. Why? Because the cost of challenging this oppressive orthodoxy has, for them, become too high. Upon
    a possible awakening, they—or more likely their children—might say that the country was occupied.
    And they would be right.
    -David Mamet

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)