"Hitler did a lot of good things"- Donald Trump, to his Chief of Staff

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,962
8,390
113
more info:

Trump wanted the person who leaked that he'd hidden in the White House bunker during anti-racism protests to be identified, charged with treason, and executed.

No dictator tendencies there! :rolleyes:

 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
more info:

Trump wanted the person who leaked that he'd hidden in the White House bunker during anti-racism protests to be identified, charged with treason, and executed.

No dictator tendencies there! :rolleyes:

Oh gee, another book about rumors...... I'll bet you're a real sucker for soap operas.

Although the article may be accurate about Schiff - he definitely should stand trial for treason.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,286
2,907
113
Thanks for this. I don’t see how this supports the proposition that Hitler was a righty in any sense. We can agree that both a liberal and conservative believe in a stable moral order even with the knowledge that a liberal is more comfortable with sudden radical change than a conservative. The significant difference is that a conservative finds unity of purpose and morality in the common history and tradition, and as Burke noted, changes are with deliberation and caution. OTOH, liberals see moral and social unity imposed by a sovereign entity. Thie latter is right up Hitler’s alley.

After conservatives stuck us with trump, I don't think they can talk about morality.

Imposed on others? like imposing your views on women's rights over their body or imposing your views on gay marriage on the LGBT community?

Or it is ok for conservatives to force their opinions on everyone?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Stuffshot and DANC

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,286
2,907
113
more info:

Trump wanted the person who leaked that he'd hidden in the White House bunker during anti-racism protests to be identified, charged with treason, and executed.

No dictator tendencies there! :rolleyes:


I guess we should count ourselves lucky some people didn't follow his orders. If left to his own devices and everyone did as he instructed...well the gutless GOP cowards in the senate would still have protected him..so i guess nothing would have changed.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,286
2,907
113
Oh gee, another book about rumors...... I'll bet you're a real sucker for soap operas.

Although the article may be accurate about Schiff - he definitely should stand trial for treason.

First in line for treason is orange man trump, your master.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
After conservatives stuck us with trump, I don't think they can talk about morality.

Imposed on others? like imposing your views on women's rights over their body or imposing your views on gay marriage on the LGBT community?

Or it is ok for conservatives to force their opinions on everyone?
You are so precious.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,989
113
After conservatives stuck us with trump, I don't think they can talk about morality.

Imposed on others? like imposing your views on women's rights over their body or imposing your views on gay marriage on the LGBT community?

Or it is ok for conservatives to force their opinions on everyone?
No. Views of religious or social conservatism are not those of political conservatives. You need to take a deeper dive into what Marv posted.
 
Last edited:

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,344
1,416
113
more info:

Trump wanted the person who leaked that he'd hidden in the White House bunker during anti-racism protests to be identified, charged with treason, and executed.

No dictator tendencies there! :rolleyes:

Hell, even if true it beat's what the Clinton's do, they never bring any charges just suicide them or some other strange death. No Nazi tendencies there at all!
 

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,344
1,416
113
I guess we should count ourselves lucky some people didn't follow his orders. If left to his own devices and everyone did as he instructed...well the gutless GOP cowards in the senate would still have protected him..so i guess nothing would have changed.
Have you ever had a mental evaluation? I am being serious. You name yourself after a nut tree , they don't fall far from the tree. You really might want to think about it. Lord the liberals are riled up posting like the true idiots they are today!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,286
2,907
113
Have you ever had a mental evaluation? I am being serious. You name yourself after a nut tree , they don't fall far from the tree. You really might want to think about it. Lord the liberals are riled up posting like the true idiots they are today!

Not sure you're one to talk. Your mental stability is shaky at best. Although in your case, it may just be the utter lack of brain cells.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Crayfish57

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
8,377
9,652
113
The Southern Sun
Well, the jerk store called and you are still in stock.
7.png


😄
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
9,011
4,023
113
After conservatives stuck us with trump, I don't think they can talk about morality.

Imposed on others? like imposing your views on women's rights over their body or imposing your views on gay marriage on the LGBT community?

Or it is ok for conservatives to force their opinions on everyone?
Republicans used to claim they wanted "big government" to stay out of their lives, because they believed in "personal choice."

Now, it's apparent Republicans want "big government" to overrule the "personal choice" of others (not them) when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana laws.
 

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
48,210
22,115
113
Duckburg
Republicans used to claim they wanted "big government" to stay out of their lives, because they believed in "personal choice."

Now, it's apparent Republicans want "big government" to overrule the "personal choice" of others (not them) when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana laws.
Stupid and undiscerning broad brush post.

Vast uncountable numbers of Republicans support all three of the things you cite.

Go make boob posts on the OTF.

You’re in over your head here.
 

mcmurtry66

Hall of Famer
Mar 14, 2019
10,808
8,603
113
Republicans used to claim they wanted "big government" to stay out of their lives, because they believed in "personal choice."

Now, it's apparent Republicans want "big government" to overrule the "personal choice" of others (not them) when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana laws.
Good grief.
 

HooDatGuy

Senior
Sep 10, 2020
2,089
2,354
113
Republicans used to claim they wanted "big government" to stay out of their lives, because they believed in "personal choice."

Now, it's apparent Republicans want "big government" to overrule the "personal choice" of others (not them) when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana laws.
Women’s rights, gay rights and marijuana laws?

Did I just hop in a time machine back to 2000? Or 1920?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
7,842
1,231
113
Republicans used to claim they wanted "big government" to stay out of their lives, because they believed in "personal choice."

Now, it's apparent Republicans want "big government" to overrule the "personal choice" of others (not them) when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, and marijuana laws.
What is a woman's right?

What is a gay right?

18 states have decriminalized pot

Should the other 32 states choose to do so, the path is there.

Democrats want to do away with protections which have been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for over two hundred years.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
9,011
4,023
113
Stupid and undiscerning broad brush post.

Vast uncountable numbers of Republicans support all three of the things you cite.

Go make boob posts on the OTF.

You’re in over your head here.
No, not at all. All three of those things are discussed in the Republican 2016 national platform, which was readopted for the 2020 election and can be found in the following link in its entirety:


I was responding to Post 418 which referred to "women's rights over their body." As disclosed in the link, Trump released his "second-term agenda" on August 23, 2020 (though he never got to pursue it). Trump's agenda (as disclosed in the link) included "Protect unborn life through every means available."

Pp. 13-14 of the 2016-2020 Republican platform says: "The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide."

As for gay rights, pp. 31-32 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says:

-- "Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. "

-- "Every child deserves a married mom and dad. "

-- "Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.

Page 40 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says: "In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long-range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences."

Make what you will of P. 40's discussion of drugs -- I admit it can be read to suggest that Republicans might be a little more receptive to legalization of marijuana than they were previously. But, p. 40 remains vague and ambiguous and, for sure, it doesn't come right out and say the GOP supports legalization of marijuana. To prove me wrong on this point, maybe you can link to some Republican speeches proposing legalization of marijuana.

Have a good day.
 

Lucy01

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2014
10,622
5,116
113
No, not at all. All three of those things are discussed in the Republican 2016 national platform, which was readopted for the 2020 election and can be found in the following link in its entirety:


I was responding to Post 418 which referred to "women's rights over their body." As disclosed in the link, Trump released his "second-term agenda" on August 23, 2020 (though he never got to pursue it). Trump's agenda (as disclosed in the link) included "Protect unborn life through every means available."

Pp. 13-14 of the 2016-2020 Republican platform says: "The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide."

As for gay rights, pp. 31-32 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says:

-- "Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. "

-- "Every child deserves a married mom and dad. "

-- "Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.

Page 40 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says: "In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long-range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences."

Make what you will of P. 40's discussion of drugs -- I admit it can be read to suggest that Republicans might be a little more receptive to legalization of marijuana than they were previously. But, p. 40 remains vague and ambiguous and, for sure, it doesn't come right out and say the GOP supports legalization of marijuana. To prove me wrong on this point, maybe you can link to some Republican speeches proposing legalization of marijuana.

Have a good day.
I see you are copying Cosmic!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
48,210
22,115
113
Duckburg
No, not at all. All three of those things are discussed in the Republican 2016 national platform, which was readopted for the 2020 election and can be found in the following link in its entirety:


I was responding to Post 418 which referred to "women's rights over their body." As disclosed in the link, Trump released his "second-term agenda" on August 23, 2020 (though he never got to pursue it). Trump's agenda (as disclosed in the link) included "Protect unborn life through every means available."

Pp. 13-14 of the 2016-2020 Republican platform says: "The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide."

As for gay rights, pp. 31-32 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says:

-- "Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. "

-- "Every child deserves a married mom and dad. "

-- "Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.

Page 40 of the 2016/2020 Republican platform says: "In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long-range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences."

Make what you will of P. 40's discussion of drugs -- I admit it can be read to suggest that Republicans might be a little more receptive to legalization of marijuana than they were previously. But, p. 40 remains vague and ambiguous and, for sure, it doesn't come right out and say the GOP supports legalization of marijuana. To prove me wrong on this point, maybe you can link to some Republican speeches proposing legalization of marijuana.

Have a good day.
You moved the goalpost.

You never said “a set or subset of Republicans” or even that”the Republicans who created the party platform”

You just said “Republicans” - unqualified in any way
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,281
4,862
113
You moved the goalpost.

You never said “a set or subset of Republicans” or even that”the Republicans who created the party platform”

You just said “Republicans” - unqualified in any way
So it's the RNC platform that Trump ran on, but you want to distinguish it from "Republicans"? Don't most Republicans support Trump? Who exactly represents these other Republicans?

Do you really think if we delve back into all those nonsense threads you've started since the election, we won't find examples of you attacking political opponents with "unqualified" terminology?

Stuffshot won this skirmish the moment he posted the 2020 RNC platform...
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark and DANC

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
48,210
22,115
113
Duckburg
So it's the RNC platform that Trump ran on, but you want to distinguish it from "Republicans"? Don't most Republicans support Trump? Who exactly represents these other Republicans?

Do you really think if we delve back into all those nonsense threads you've started since the election, we won't find examples of you attacking political opponents with "unqualified" terminology?

Stuffshot won this skirmish the moment he posted the 2020 RNC platform...
Lots of Republicans voted against Trump in the 2016 primaries.
Many “held their nose” and voted for for despite disagreements.
Some voted against 4 times.
Many voted for him because the alternative was a large step toward more Nanny-state socialism.
Saying “Republicans” hate gays and women is hateful rhetoric that is inaccurate.

And plenty of potheads are Republican and don’t lie about their inhaling.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
9,011
4,023
113
You moved the goalpost.

You never said “a set or subset of Republicans” or even that”the Republicans who created the party platform”

You just said “Republicans” - unqualified in any way
Well, doesn't the Republican national committee speak for all Republicans?

It'd be interesting in 2024 if Republicans ran for office saying "I'm a Republican but I disagree with all the Democrats as well as the Trump announced agenda and also the platform approved by the Republican national committee."
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,281
4,862
113
Lots of Republicans voted against Trump in the 2016 primaries.
Many “held their nose” and voted for for despite disagreements.
Some voted against 4 times.
Many voted for him because the alternative was a large step toward more Nanny-state socialism.
Saying “Republicans” hate gays and women is hateful rhetoric that is inaccurate.

And plenty of potheads are Republican and don’t lie about their inhaling.
All you're pointing out is that there were anti-Trumpers (and many candidates) in the 2016 (not 2020) primaries. So are you saying that stuff should have said "Trumpers" instead of Republicans...I try to do that fairly often, but I get yelled at for that as well...

And it's interesting that DANC "liked" your post, since he falls right in the category that stuffshot was referring to. You have your Jim Jordan Republicans and your Liz Cheney Republicans.

I imagine DANC is a Jim Jordan supporter. I don't agree with Cheney on most political issues, but I admire her for her sense of duty and for doing what's right. Jim Jordan epitomizes the type of Republican I detest...

 
Last edited:

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,281
4,862
113
Oh gee, another book about rumors...... I'll bet you're a real sucker for soap operas.

Although the article may be accurate about Schiff - he definitely should stand trial for treason.
What are you gonna say when Kellyanne releases her tell-all book? Trump is not looking forward to that one...
 

ButHerEmails

Senior
Sep 28, 2019
2,159
2,073
113
So it's the RNC platform that Trump ran on, but you want to distinguish it from "Republicans"? Don't most Republicans support Trump? Who exactly represents these other Republicans?

Do you really think if we delve back into all those nonsense threads you've started since the election, we won't find examples of you attacking political opponents with "unqualified" terminology?

Stuffshot won this skirmish the moment he posted the 2020 RNC platform...
If you took the board’s republicans at their word, they’d have you believing that 75% of republicans don’t fall into the 90% that support Trump.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
9,011
4,023
113
If you took the board’s republicans at their word, they’d have you believing that 75% of republicans don’t fall into the 90% that support Trump.
No! No math like that, ever again. It sounds too much like this:

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
All you're pointing out is that there were anti-Trumpers (and many candidates) in the 2016 (not 2020) primaries. So are you saying that stuff should have said "Trumpers" instead of Republicans...I try to do that fairly often, but I get yelled at for that as well...

And it's interesting that DANC "liked" your post, since he falls right in the category that stuffshot was referring to. You have your Jim Jordan Republicans and your Liz Cheney Republicans.

I imagine DANC is a Jim Jordan supporter. I don't agree with Cheney on most political issues, but I admire her for her sense of duty and for doing what's right. Jim Jordan epitomizes the type of Republican I detest...

I can see why you hate him, since he is very effective at countering Dim's bullshit.