ADVERTISEMENT

I stand with Rand

MegaPoke

Moderator
Moderator
May 29, 2001
58,299
56,117
113
54
Tulsa
www.shipmanphotos.com
He discusses Trump's performance to this point. Discusses John McCain's attacks on Trump. Repeal/replace, trumps "attacks" on media and judiciary etc.

@CowboyJD i know you aren't big on videos - but since you specifically cited Rand last week, I would be interested in your take on this.

I'm a huge Rand Paul fan and he was my top choice in the GOP field going into the primaries.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/paul...y?id=45583609&cid=clicksource_903_null_dp_hed
 
Didn't watch the video. Did read the article.

I agree with the statements about McCain.

When Karl pressed Paul specifically about McCain’s remark on dictators and the press, Paul continued to defend the president, “I don't agree with his analysis and applying that to the president. I haven't seen any legislation coming forward that wants to limit the press. I see President Trump expressing his opinion, rather forceful in his own -- you know, his own distinct way."

I partially agree and partially disagree. We haven't seen any legislation, but more than once Trump has talked about opening up the laws. MCain is going overboard with the dictator comparisons, but Rand is going placing the accountability bar too low regarding the statements and others. That's consistent with my continued position regarding Trump....he's no Hitler, but I continue to have concerns over his authoritarian tendencies not being good leadership for the way America needs to go.

In the big scheme of my Trump concerns, Sweden is "meh" to me as well. It makes Trump look pretty dumb, IMO. I wished he hadn't done it, but it doesn't factor into my particular set of concerns.
 
I continue to have concerns over his authoritarian tendencies not being good leadership for the way America needs to go./QUOTE]

how do you think america needs to go and what leadership style would compliment this path given the current circumstance?
 
Trump is just stating things about the press that cowardly politicians have wanted to say for ever.

This hysteria over the first amendment rights of the press is ridiculous. If they cant stand to be challenged then get another job. What a bunch of pansies.

I've got news for all the lefty cry babies, the right wants a free and open press much more than the left. It's the only way we can get our voices heard over the liberal msm.

The only people I see employing fascist anti speech behavior are the Soros sponsed rioters of the far left.
 
Trump is just stating things about the press that cowardly politicians have wanted to say for ever.

This hysteria over the first amendment rights of the press is ridiculous. If they cant stand to be challenged then get another job. What a bunch of pansies.

I've got news for all the lefty cry babies, the right wants a free and open press much more than the left. It's the only way we can get our voices heard over the liberal msm.

The only people I see employing fascist anti speech behavior are the Soros sponsed rioters of the far left.

Agree. Any fool could see that the animosity and provocations are mutual. The MSM Look like total pussies in their pearl clutching reactions. Free speech is still a two way street.

Let me know when they cant scream oppression nonstop from every possible platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorOdinson13

A very broad philosophical question that deserves more analysis, discussion, and back and forth than can be given justice on a message board but here are a view cliff notes:

Leadership qualities I prefer in a President

-A strict adherence to and respect for the Constitution.
-A commitment to reasoned debate.
-Say what you mean and mean what you say.
-Showing and understanding and commitment to checks and balances of our system and getting the job done within that system.
-A willingness to seek compromise and areas of agreement....that believes reasonable minds can disagree and that the political opposition isn't the devil, they are fellow Americans with a different view.

I'm not going to spend my holiday time giving multiple, detailed policy analysis. Generally I believe that which, within the context of adherent to the Constitution promotes and provides greater individual freedom is for the best. I'm generally:

-A free trader
-Not an isolationist but definitely a non-interventionalist
-I believe there are still racial inequities in our society, especially in the criminal justice system
-I'm somewhere in the middle towards the on gun control issue. The 2nd A is not without limits
-Believe in secure borders, but also believe in more legal immigration
-View the threat of radical Islam in a way that is less concerned with them sending in refugees to perform coordinated directed attacks and more concerned with their social media efforts radicalizing citizens and others here to perform attacks of their own violation. Cant really formulate an opinion of whether more extreme vetting is needed because so far we haven't been told what that will look like. I think a ban, even from just the seven countries in play right now, is bad public policy.
-I don't view the globalist threat...however someone wants to define that...is nearly as big a threat as portrayed....I don't see us ever moving towards Euro Community style sharing of sovereignty with anyone.
 
Trump is just stating things about the press that cowardly politicians have wanted to say for ever.

This hysteria over the first amendment rights of the press is ridiculous. If they cant stand to be challenged then get another job. What a bunch of pansies.

I've got news for all the lefty cry babies, the right wants a free and open press much more than the left. It's the only way we can get our voices heard over the liberal msm.

The only people I see employing fascist anti speech behavior are the Soros sponsed rioters of the far left.

@CBradSmith

For context on what we were speaking about earlier.
 
Anyone have thoughts on Rand Paul's healthcare plan proposal?

Rand explaining it a few days ago:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
A very broad philosophical question that deserves more analysis, discussion, and back and forth than can be given justice on a message board but here are a view cliff notes:

Leadership qualities I prefer in a President

-A strict adherence to and respect for the Constitution.
-A commitment to reasoned debate.
-Say what you mean and mean what you say.
-Showing and understanding and commitment to checks and balances of our system and getting the job done within that system.
-A willingness to seek compromise and areas of agreement....that believes reasonable minds can disagree and that the political opposition isn't the devil, they are fellow Americans with a different view.

I'm not going to spend my holiday time giving multiple, detailed policy analysis. Generally I believe that which, within the context of adherent to the Constitution promotes and provides greater individual freedom is for the best. I'm generally:

-A free trader
-Not an isolationist but definitely a non-interventionalist
-I believe there are still racial inequities in our society, especially in the criminal justice system
-I'm somewhere in the middle towards the on gun control issue. The 2nd A is not without limits
-Believe in secure borders, but also believe in more legal immigration
-View the threat of radical Islam in a way that is less concerned with them sending in refugees to perform coordinated directed attacks and more concerned with their social media efforts radicalizing citizens and others here to perform attacks of their own violation. Cant really formulate an opinion of whether more extreme vetting is needed because so far we haven't been told what that will look like. I think a ban, even from just the seven countries in play right now, is bad public policy.
-I don't view the globalist threat...however someone wants to define that...is nearly as big a threat as portrayed....I don't see us ever moving towards Euro Community style sharing of sovereignty with anyone.

I like your list, but is it realistic to religiously hold a specific individual to this list? I'd be curious who was the last president who met your criteria. Does Obama meet any of your first 5 items? Maybe the 'mean what you say', but clearly circumvented the other 4. GWB then? He's probably close except for being an interventionist. Clinton? Do you care what the definition of 'is' is? How about Bush Sr.? Probably the closest to your criteria, but then again, what about "no new taxes"? Not exactly saying what he meant. And Reagan was 30+ years ago, so its hard to try to translate his ruling prowess to today's time and age. I'd also note that I'm 42 years old, so even Reagan's time as president was during my childhood so his perspective and those of prior president's are before my time to really judge or evaluate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
I like your list, but is it realistic to religiously hold a specific individual to this list? I'd be curious who was the last president who met your criteria. Does Obama meet any of your first 5 items? Maybe the 'mean what you say', but clearly circumvented the other 4. GWB then? He's probably close except for being an interventionist. Clinton? Do you care what the definition of 'is' is? How about Bush Sr.? Probably the closest to your criteria, but then again, what about "no new taxes"? Not exactly saying what he meant. And Reagan was 30+ years ago, so its hard to try to translate his ruling prowess to today's time and age. I'd also note that I'm 42 years old, so even Reagan's time as president was during my childhood so his perspective and those of prior president's are before my time to really judge or evaluate.

Realistic? Maybe not, but I'm not gonna stop pursuing and hoping and evaluating them on the basis of my ideal. As I have said somewhere else, I am prone to "excessive vigilance" when it comes to authoritarianism. I'm not interested in dissecting in President against my list, but I will say that all during my adulthood have fallen short of ideal....so more so than others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
More interested in what health care practitioners think of Rand Paul's health care plan. This is more impactful than men going in women's bathrooms.

 
meh nz when repubs are getting things done

dems are gonna cry for equality and tug at americas heart strings with seat up seat down squat piss stand piss "issues"
 
meh nz when repubs are getting things done

dems are gonna cry for equality and tug at americas heart strings with seat up seat down squat piss stand piss "issues"

It's the Republicans that view seat up seat down squat piss stand piss issues are important enough to actually make....you know...using the wrong bathroom criminal conduct. They're the ones passing the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
It's the Republicans that view seat up seat down squat piss stand piss issues are important enough to actually make....you know...using the wrong bathroom criminal conduct. They're the ones passing the laws.


wrong
 
I thought these were "school directives" whatever that means.

Trump's EO pulls back an Obama EO which was a directive/interpretive guidance to schools via Dept. of Ed.

Obama's EO was issued after passage of NC HB which restricted usage of bathrooms that correspond with the sex listed on birth certificate. At least seven other states have filed bills doing essentially the same thing, we will see if they pass.

I don't have any problem with a Trump EO rescinding Obama's. IMO, this is a local issue. Let's not pretend like the bathroom debate was something started and stirred up by lefties to pull at heart strings though. They were responding to passage of a law by a Republican legislature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capanski
So what happens if either was ignored?

Violation of NC's statute = misdemeanor. So ignoring it could lead to jail.

Obama's EO = not clear what ignoring it could lead to. The implication, but not expressly stated, was the possibility of lost funding or a discrimination investigation by Dept. of Ed.
 
so the president of the united states issued an executive order in response to a state law in north carolina

keep going...
 
Does trumps eo roll back obamas eo and leave decisions to local schools or does it say biological gender must determine the bathroom used as a federal law?
 
Where did trannies used to poop before this became a thing?

It's a very pertinent question.

Maybe CUP can weigh in on this. Not because he is trans, but because for the longest time luc- duc- dong (sp) had as his signature a quote by CUP regarding toxic pooping
 
so the president of the united states issued an executive order in response to a state law in north carolina

keep going...

You might want to read the rest of the post I made.

No need for me to "keep going" as I said that I have no problem with Trump rescinding it.

I said this is a local rights issue at this point until there is settled law on the question of Constitutional propriety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rdcldad
Where did trannies used to poop before this became a thing?

The two transsexuals I know personally used the bathroom of their associated gender (as opposed to sex at birth). They continue to do so because they don't live in a state that has criminalized doing so...yet.
 
That's what I assumed. Did this result in a lot of issues I never heard about?

I would say no, voters for HB 2 in NC would likely claim yes because they felt the need to pass a law prohibiting it.
 
You might want to read the rest of the post I made.

No need for me to "keep going" as I said that I have no problem with Trump rescinding it.

I said this is a local rights issue at this point until there is settled law on the question of Constitutional propriety.

you triangulated this "local rights issue" with north carolina republican legislation

into my original comments which were directed towards a

republican senator rand paul working on national health care legislation while democrat snowflake senator fake tears shumer was commenting on where people piss

you co-0pted my point into something that fit yours, called me snowflake and offered to show me my ignorance in the process.

that's where you are wrong

ps I dearly appreciate the training this dialogue provides
 
So a prediction that Dems are gonna cry for equality and tug at America's heart strings with....actually a comment on Paul's healthcare proposals.

Okay, but the connection you think you were making wasn't exactly clear and explicit in your actual post.

meh nz when repubs are getting things done

dems are gonna cry for equality and tug at americas heart strings with seat up seat down squat piss stand piss "issues"

To which I responded that Republicans are the party that are generated the issue and laws about where we piss, etc.

It's the Republicans that view seat up seat down squat piss stand piss issues are important enough to actually make....you know...using the wrong bathroom criminal conduct. They're the ones passing the laws.

To which you made the single, factually incorrect statement "wrong".
 
So this all started over Republican virtue signaling?

It started over Republican attempts to criminalize conduct that both you and I seemingly agree wasn't causing issues.

If that's virtue signaling, then yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaPoke
It started over Republican attempts to criminalize conduct that both you and I seemingly agree wasn't causing issues.

If that's virtue signaling, then yes.

Been awhile since I went on a good rant against the legislation of morality. But I'm glad to know I'm not crazy for having no memory of noticing trannies causing problems in bathrooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
So a prediction that Dems are gonna cry for equality and tug at America's heart strings with....actually a comment on Paul's healthcare proposals.

Okay, but the connection you think you were making wasn't exactly clear and explicit in your actual post.



To which I responded that Republicans are the party that are generated the issue and laws about where we piss, etc.



To which you made the single, factually incorrect statement "wrong".

what was absolutely clear is that my comments were made to NZ who previous to my original post had posted of rand paul's work on healthcare the same day as fake tears shumer wailed about urinary equality.

it's reasonable that nz would see my comments as simply relating to the news of the day

before you interdicted from left field

to be clear i say urinary because straight males females and lgbtq all defecate through the anus unless there is a colostomy bag or ng tube in place.(i'm sure medical professionals can and i will gladly accept their corrections)

back on point

i posted wrong because you were wrong.

wrong to take my comments, bunny trail them to north carolina and come over the top with crap that was an absolute non-starter as it related to my comments clearly directed towards NZ.

again i appreciate the debate
 
what was absolutely clear is that my comments were made to NZ who previous to my original post had posted of rand paul's work on healthcare the same day as fake tears shumer wailed about urinary equality.

it's reasonable that nz would see my comments as simply relating to the news of the day

before you interdicted from left field

to be clear i say urinary because straight males females and lgbtq all defecate through the anus unless there is a colostomy bag or ng tube in place.(i'm sure medical professionals can and i will gladly accept their corrections)

back on point

i posted wrong because you were wrong.

wrong to take my comments, bunny trail them to north carolina and come over the top with crap that was an absolute non-starter as it related to my comments clearly directed towards NZ.

again i appreciate the debate

I understand you believe you were absolutely clear.

Good talk.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT