You defend him, I never said anything about supporting him. Probably because your partisan leanings and identification compel you to defend him while insulting those you deem to be against your tribe. It's okay, just own up to it.
Show me where I defend him? Screenshot where I defend his lies? You make up fabrications.
The House could've refused to seat him and he could be expelled. There's already a process set up. Just because you don't understand how the government works doesn't mean I'm the bad guy here.
2/3 of the vote. They will not expel him. Let's look at the only times congressmen have been expelled and the reason for it.
1. John Clark - Joined the Confederacy
2. John Reid - Joined the Confederacy
3. Henry Burnet - Joined the Confederacy
4. Michael Myers - Bribery
5. James Trafecant - Bribery, Obstruction of Justice
Show me where someone is expelled for lying? Again you're an emotional person that hates the right. The only reason you care so much is because the Republicans control the house. If this was a Democrat, you would actually defend him.
I think most people should be angry at the right. The party that the right has empowered is actively working to derail America's democracy and hard won civil rights for minorities and women.
And the point is that McCarthy's hold over the House is tenuous at best. Santos supports him and so therefore McCarthy supports Santos. You're pretending to be ignorant. Be better (Be Best!).
Again, one person does not change who holds the house. Just because you don't understand how the government works doesn't mean I'm the bad guy here. Go cry some more.
Again, you're pretending to be ignorant again. We all see what Santos is doing here.
You see what Santos is doing here. Nobody, other than the people on the far left would even try to make this an issue or care about this. It's not being ignorant, it's being real.
I don't think that improves my view about your low level of intelligence, historical knowledge, or understanding of the American government.
If you get personal, I'll get personal. I tell you, you have no depth. Im not criticizing your intelligence, Im criticizing that you post comments without real knowledge on certain topics, so your arguments are shallow. Not you as a person. If you start to insult me personally, I will not put up with it. You tell me to Be Better, maybe you should reflect on that about yourself.
Actually, the two party system acts as gatekeepers for bad ideas and candidates.
Biden, Bush, Trump, MTG, Swalwell, Boxer, Harris, Johnson, Boebert, Waters, Schiff, Omar... don't get started on bad ideas, this will not help your argument.
This is one of the reasons why American democracy has survived while other democracies around the world have crashed and burned over the last 200 years. Parties should actually be strengthened even more. It's only been in recent years where parties have become weakened that we've seen the decline in candidate quality. The inability for the party to kill off the political life of bad candidates, like Santos and Trump, is one of the major problems our democracy faces.
You can kill off bad candidates with more options. This is business 101 and works in politics as well. Ross Perot. An independent option, can give an us another viable option, rather than being stuck with 2 terrible candidates.
How did "everyone" in this forum "let me know this" in the 2A thread? I had one person disagree with me and I discussed gun regulation with several others.
Again, You posting not knowing enough about 2a to have an honest conversation. All you did was post Democrat talking points. Here are 3 different people slapping down those talking points with ease:
1. "Most guns purchased at gun shows are subject to a background check. Being at a gun show in and of itself does not provide any relief from background checks. People should stop calling it a gun show loophole because it has nothing to do with gun shows specifically."
2. "Realistically the laws around concealed carry and such have little to zero impact on mass shootings. We could make them go through a 5 year waiting period or take it to any extreme you want and some incel somewhere will just take his uncles guns and go shoot up a bar somewhere. It has nothing to do with concealed carry."
3. "Like how we could have a 1st amendment while regulating speech, discouraging the voicing of any unpopular opinion, and using the law to hold people accountable for unapproved speech?"
I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with different ideas. Is it a competition to shut down discussion when posters are acting respectfully and in good faith? I'm sorry you lack tolerance. Perhaps you'd be better off being more curious and actually reading books to inform yourself? Be better (Be Best!).
Ironic, coming from the person who puts people on ignore when someone has a different opinion. I have repeatedly stated I will not block anyone and that I like reading all perspectives. I like reading your perspective when it comes to topics I don't post on, since I don't have depth on the topic. I am the one who has stood up to posters on here about government colluding with business to shut down information and speech. I am well informed about many topics, just not all of them. That's why I don't post on every topic like yourself.
You still can't define what a moderate is. You just glossed right over that.
On this forum, I have criticized Republican politicians more than I have with Democrat politicians... MTG, Walker, OZ, Boebert, Santos, Trump compared to Biden?!?! Yet you keep trying to categorize me as a right sided partisan. I have stated my views on different topics which align with both liberal and conservative views.
amp.cnn.com
