Classic Trump

[NEDenver]

6 hours ago, nanana said:

There is a lot of self-flavor in the style of your question NEDenver. It’s open to interpretation. I apprecIate the leftie boys for honoring the request 🙂.  

As long as you appreciate how pathetic and hypocritical conservatives always are.  It’s like bad fantasy fanfic over there.

[nanana]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

That's not endorsing or condemning the government: it's stating a fact.

Did you know the Waco survivors were acquitted on the basis of self-defense? Your general arguments and hissie fits seem mainly to be about your inability to abide with or understand the appeal of gun ownership. You seem to think that the government is the only group of people who should get to kill innocents and get away with it.  Without evaluating your personal opinions, do you really expect everyone else’s options to emanate from your personal opinions? Are you just mister civic Everyman that the gun sellers in Waco should just lay down their arms on your recommendation? 

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You don't see leftie boys demanding that Reich Whingers stay out of our discussions; we're able to take the back and forth.

I would describe it more as a mosquito net. I like To hike in the great wild AND I like to have some time away from small buzzy bite that adds limited value when exploring commonalities in the bunk with men whose insights I’m seeking.  Both are fun. I’m there. I’m here. It’s a bit rich to praise yourself for your conversational intrepidity on a bareback website, seems pretty sheltered from the normies if you ask me. 

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

In other words: you want all of the benefits of societal living - the things we can accomplish when we all have to live and work together - with the freedom to reject all the ones you don't like, even if you're still drawing on the benefits of the society. In other words, you're like the libertarian cat: totally convinced of its own superiority and its complete exemption from all rules it doesn't want to obey but completely incapable of opening the can of food for itself, so it stands at the food bowl and screams for attention.

This seems to be classic leftie projection to me. Again you cast yourself as spokesperson for society and imply that people should not start from their own premises and create their own lives because society. I have obligation to accept your starting points just because you’ve convinced yourself that your not a snowflake. 

[BootmanLA]

On 10/30/2024 at 5:23 AM, nanana said:

Did you know the Waco survivors were acquitted on the basis of self-defense? Your general arguments and hissie fits seem mainly to be about your inability to abide with or understand the appeal of gun ownership. You seem to think that the government is the only group of people who should get to kill innocents and get away with it.  Without evaluating your personal opinions, do you really expect everyone else’s options to emanate from your personal opinions? Are you just mister civic Everyman that the gun sellers in Waco should just lay down their arms on your recommendation? 

You seem to have a very creative mind, imagining what I "seem to think." I assure you that you do not, in fact, understand my thoughts. I made a statement of fact: that if the government decides it wants to take someone out, it's got the firepower to do it, regardless of whatever the courts might later find. 

I understand gun ownership just fine. What I particularly understand, and what too many "Don't Tread On Me" people seem to not understand, is that there simply isn't enough civilian firepower to overthrow our government via some sort of armed rebellion. That doesn't mean I think anyone should lay down his gun; that's his choice to do. I'm only pointing out that it won't do what so many of them think it will.

On 10/30/2024 at 5:23 AM, nanana said:

I would describe it more as a mosquito net. I like To hike in the great wild AND I like to have some time away from small buzzy bite that adds limited value when exploring commonalities in the bunk with men whose insights I’m seeking.  Both are fun. I’m there. I’m here. It’s a bit rich to praise yourself for your conversational intrepidity on a bareback website, seems pretty sheltered from the normies if you ask me. 

I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here. I've never pretended this site has anything to do with "normies" (whatever you think those are).

On 10/30/2024 at 5:23 AM, nanana said:

This seems to be classic leftie projection to me. Again you cast yourself as spokesperson for society and imply that people should not start from their own premises and create their own lives because society. I have obligation to accept your starting points just because you’ve convinced yourself that your not a snowflake. 

I'm not a spokesperson for society. I'm an observer of society and a spokesperson for me. But I recognize that intrinsic in the nature of 'society' is a lot of give-and-take (call it curtailing of freedoms if you like) in order to live together amicably. The tradeoff is the benefit we get from our interdependent nature in the society.

People are certainly free to create their own lives. But if they want the benefits of living in a society, they have to follow the rules of that society, where those exist. In theory, a constitution sets boundaries around which the members of the society may or may not impose rules, and those rules are imposed by one's representatives (if they're legally binding) or by one's neighbors (if they're merely social constructs). The problem I have with many "libertarian" type individuals is that they want all the benefits of living in a society that others, for the most part, created, but they don't want to have to follow the conventions and rules of that society. 

[nanana]

I think you’re conflating cost of “society” with cost of “government.”   I would argue that it is actually liberals who want the benefits of “society” but want to shift the cost of it via “government” to those who may not perceive benefit. It would be helpful to take your argument out of the ethereal plain and make it concrete. In the absence of specific examples, I’m left to imagine the “benefits” of society: mass murder of imperial subjects to the tune of trillions hmmm; the lack of respect and boundaries for citizens rights and savings; the perversion of the education system; eminent domain; over-legislation and regulation of morality, etc  

I’m personally not an absolutist libertarian, but I think the scope of government is vastly out of whack and generally should be curtailed. I’d start pulling back on wealth transfers to the rich, over-legislation of morality where there’s not a consensus, and offensive military expenditure, and generally limit excess expenditure for which the Fed invents money and inflates away savings. My bet is that most of the areas you would cite as “the benefits of society” are not places I’d start on, but a less ethereal, less imaginary set of benefits might help at least  to help me understand the big ideas behind “benefits of society.”

 

[Erik62]

10 minutes ago, nanana said:

I think you’re conflating cost of “society” with cost of “government.”   I would argue that it is actually liberals who want the benefits of “society” but want to shift the cost of it via “government” to those who may not perceive benefit. It would be helpful to take your argument out of the ethereal plain and make it concrete. In the absence of specific examples, I’m left to imagine the “benefits” of society: mass murder of imperial subjects to the tune of trillions hmmm; the lack of respect and boundaries for citizens rights and savings; the perversion of the education system; eminent domain; over-legislation and regulation of morality, etc  

I’m personally not an absolutist libertarian, but I think the scope of government is vastly out of whack and generally should be curtailed. I’d start pulling back on wealth transfers to the rich, over-legislation of morality where there’s not a consensus, and offensive military expenditure, and generally limit excess expenditure for which the Fed invents money and inflates away savings. My bet is that most of the areas you would cite as “the benefits of society” are not places I’d start on, but a less ethereal, less imaginary set of benefits might help at least  to help me understand the big ideas behind “benefits of society.”

 

"Benefits of society" is supposed to be a two way street. Wealthy pay higher taxes for eg: health. Both the wealthy & lower economic working groups benefit through a subsidised health care system. The wealthy help fund (higher taxes) & in turn the workers receive quality health care which prevents extended time off work through sickness, injury etc. The wealthy NEED HEALTHY "slaves" so they can clean the dirty toilets of the worlds Elon Musks. NO WAY Elon gonna get HIS HANDS dirty cleaning a bog, he's just used. If government is curtailed, in its powers, HOW THE FUCK does a country get stable governance. 

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, nanana said:

I think you’re conflating cost of “society” with cost of “government.”   I would argue that it is actually liberals who want the benefits of “society” but want to shift the cost of it via “government” to those who may not perceive benefit. 

Government is how society, well, governs itself. Our Declaration of Independence (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a basis of law in this country, but a general statement of principle) itemizes assorted rights people possess, and then goes on to say "That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government is literally how we ensure that our rights are upheld (and concomitantly, our responsibilities that go along with those rights are met).

Not everyone benefits from everything government does. That's in the nature of societies and their governments.

14 hours ago, nanana said:

In the absence of specific examples, I’m left to imagine the “benefits” of society: mass murder of imperial subjects to the tune of trillions hmmm; the lack of respect and boundaries for citizens rights and savings; the perversion of the education system; eminent domain; over-legislation and regulation of morality, etc  

This is indeed an instance of "absence of specific examples". You cite a lot of alleged evils, but no concrete examples of them. But in any event, eminent domain, for one, is specifically authorized in our constitution; private property can be seized for a public purpose for just compensation. As for citizen rights: I guarantee you that our system of government, flawed as it is, does more to protect citizen rights than most, and far more than any "Lord of the Flies" libertarian paradise. 

14 hours ago, nanana said:

I’d start pulling back on wealth transfers to the rich, over-legislation of morality where there’s not a consensus, and offensive military expenditure, and generally limit excess expenditure for which the Fed invents money and inflates away savings. My bet is that most of the areas you would cite as “the benefits of society” are not places I’d start on, but a less ethereal, less imaginary set of benefits might help at least  to help me understand the big ideas behind “benefits of society.”

I'm fine with cutting back wealth transfers to the rich. Hell, I'm in favor of reverting to the tax rates we had when our country's middle class was at its peak, which is to say, around 70%. I'd apply that rate to unearned income too, instead of cushy capital gains rates for the investor class. I'm also in favor of not legislating morality (though I think it might mean something different to you than it does to me, I'm not sure).

I see the benefits of society maximized when all members of the society who contribute have their basic needs met. That means the guy who gets up at 430 AM to go get on a garbage truck to collect our refuse ought to be able to support himself and his family, as should the person who busses the tables at the restaurant down the block and the person who cleans the hotel rooms at the nearby resort. And that means all of them get health care, and adequate food and housing. 

[PozBearWI]

Man, I love rational discourse.  I am aware that the popular wisdom these days is to never "talk politics" at holiday dinners.  And yet I grew up with skilled debaters, my dad and his sister, Knox College graduates.  And their day long debates at our frequent visits sometimes contained passionately presented arguments.  But they kept talking and I learned to love listening to them.  They disagreed with love and respect for each other.  It was more than entertainment.  It helped us learn how to think.  

 @BootmanLA I love you brother.  This conversation here for me is sanity in our insane times.  Thanks.   

@nanana my new "aunt Betty" (and I loved my aunt Betty).  I truly am appreciating this whole conversation; and it wouldn't be happening without you.  Thanks.  

Maybe weird to be talking about this stuff on a bareback site (obviously our common ground).  So, in the spirit of reflecting that, the two of you are turning me on and a raw three way would be a delight.  🙂

[Erik62]

2 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

Man, I love rational discourse.  I am aware that the popular wisdom these days is to never "talk politics" at holiday dinners.  And yet I grew up with skilled debaters, my dad and his sister, Knox College graduates.  And their day long debates at our frequent visits sometimes contained passionately presented arguments.  But they kept talking and I learned to love listening to them.  They disagreed with love and respect for each other.  It was more than entertainment.  It helped us learn how to think.  

 @BootmanLA I love you brother.  This conversation here for me is sanity in our insane times.  Thanks.   

@nanana my new "aunt Betty" (and I loved my aunt Betty).  I truly am appreciating this whole conversation; and it wouldn't be happening without you.  Thanks.  

Maybe weird to be talking about this stuff on a bareback site (obviously our common ground).  So, in the spirit of reflecting that, the two of you are turning me on and a raw three way would be a delight.  🙂

I certainly agree 👍. I have become an avid follower of BootmanLA & am really enjoying his discourse on US politics. This is how it should be - joined in our common interest but, agree that we have differences. Could be interesting if we all got together for a weekend political / sex orgy 😜😜. 

[nanana]

Love it 🙂. Shooting a lot of semen into a political conversation makes it (and anything else) much better! Batter batter swing 🙂. 

[BootmanLA]

Sadly, it took until today, four days before his third election attempt, for the perfect nickname for the GOP candidate to arrive:

Sweet Potato Hitler.

 

[PozBearWI]

Perfect,   Maybe I'll order a hat with SWH above the bill....

[hntnhole]

19 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Sweet Potato Hitler

And still yam-mering away with all the crap, right to the bitterest of ends.   

Sorry - couldn't resist 😉

[Erik62]

On 11/3/2024 at 8:09 AM, BootmanLA said:

Sadly, it took until today, four days before his third election attempt, for the perfect nickname for the GOP candidate to arrive:

Sweet Potato Hitler.

 

Hej BootmanLA, with the potential for DISASTER in the US election, I was wondering. What will happen for the capacity to govern if Trump loses but contests evey state count in SCOTUS🤔?? Knowing the speed (SLOW) which any court system operates WHO WILL actually govern 🤔?? as it could be 6 or 12 months before courts finally decide the elections legitimacy.

  GOD WILLING he will be persuaded to accept his loss😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

Edited Monday at 12:47 AM by Erik62

[TaKinGDeePanal]

13 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

Hey BootmanLA, with the potential for DISASTER in the US election, I was wondering. What will happen for the capacity to govern if Trump loses but contests every state count in SCOTUS🤔?? Knowing the speed (SLOW) which any court system operates WHO WILL actually govern 🤔?? as it could be 6 or 12 months before courts finally decide the elections legitimacy.

  GOD WILLING he will be persuaded to accept his loss😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

January 6 is the Constitutional deadline for all vote counts and certification, which is why Florida stopped the recount in 2000. Bush was ahead at that stage by 537 votes, but a private recount later confirmed that Gore won the state by around 5 figures.

Edited Monday at 01:00 AM by TaKinGDeePanal

[BootmanLA]

8 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

Hej BootmanLA, with the potential for DISASTER in the US election, I was wondering. What will happen for the capacity to govern if Trump loses but contests evey state count in SCOTUS🤔?? Knowing the speed (SLOW) which any court system operates WHO WILL actually govern 🤔?? as it could be 6 or 12 months before courts finally decide the elections legitimacy.

  GOD WILLING he will be persuaded to accept his loss😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

Well, there's the official answers, and then there's the reality on the ground.

I'm confident that most of the court attacks would be dismissed as rapidly as they were in 2020, for lack of evidence. And in several of the "swing" states from 2020 - ones that flipped from Trump to Biden - the laws about voting were updated to reflect court decisions handed down then. In those cases, the law will be even easier to apply, because the legislature will have spoken and blessed certain things (like drop boxes in a given state).

And where the 2020 decision hinged on the meaning of a phrase in the law, those decisions would be precedential for challenges this time. So, for instance, if the highest court in a state ruled that a law requiring that a mail ballot be "cast" by a given date to be counted means that the ballot had to be placed in the post office box by that date, then that ruling would apply in 2024 too. That is, unless the partisanship of the state's highest court has changed for the worse and the judges go "rogue" and overturn their own prior ruling.

That's the bigger concern: in 2020, the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, turned away pretty much every challenge Trump filed. Very few of those cases even got to a full-blown hearing and trial because they were dismissed for lack of standing, failure to state a legitimate claim, and so forth. Generally, those kind of dismissals don't have precedential value on the actual merits of the case. So another federal judge could decide that, in fact, claiming X about the ballot counting process *IS* a legitimate claim, and tie up that state's votes in court. That said, no court actually required any state to not certify its electors or to let them vote, and I honestly don't see a path forward for that this time either.

That has to be balanced against the Electoral Count Act, which is what governs how state electoral votes are handled. That law was tightened in 2022 after the contentious aftermath of the 2020 election, and it's harder now to challenge electoral votes in Congress. One of the key changes was that under the old law, one senator and one representative could together challenge any state's electoral votes, and then they had to stop the count, go debate in each chamber separately, and then return and vote. That can take many hours if several states are challenged. Under the new version of the law, one-fifth of each chamber must vote to challenge, or 20 senators AND 87 representatives. There certainly will be that many Republicans, but even so, most are unlikely to actually vote to challenge.

So in sum, I think the ability to challenge the votes legally has shrunk. But we can't rule out shenanigans on the Trump campaign's part. We can only hope the system holds. One thing's for sure: I'd much rather have OUR lawyers on the case than the rag-tag bunch of losers Trump tends to have working for him; many of his attorneys from 2020 have either been disbarred or at least suspended from the practice of law.