nsplayr

Didn’t people say that when gay marriage was legalized? “Oh yea, all the E1s in the barracks are gonna ‘marry’ their buddy to get moved off base and married BAH.” Did that happen even once? The few people I know with non-standard gender expressions/identities say the same thing as my gay friends: this is just how I am, it’s not some choice I decided would be cool one day, and it can be pretty hard to be accepted in a lot of places. Probably better to just accept people how they are, treat people fairly and move on with your life. That’s my philosophy at least, even if a lot of this newfangled gender stuff the kids are going on about makes absolutely zero sense to me sometimes. #I’mOldNow

Hell yea! I mean if we can do it LFG, I’d take a transoceanic train from Mumbai to Mombasa 😂 Ok maybe not…

Seems like he might be from or live in New Hampshire and doesn’t want any of you dickheads to get any bright ideas like moving there and messing it up 😄

Resident liberal here. Obviously I disagree with your premise. “Oh how can you live in evil red states where your daughters and wives can’t get healthcare, the government bans books, gay people are ostracized, the Bible is shoved down your throat, etc.” /sarcasm. It’s a bad faith question. I’m not asking that, just parroting back the inverse of what you asked just to be clear. That being said, I’ll answer it! I grew up in what is now a fairly blue state, went to school is a very liberal city, and have since moved because of the Air Force. If I could have landed a job or assignment in a big city, I would have loved that! My family will likely move back to the city where my wife and I went to college at some point after I retire. What is your point in asking this question? Because obviously lots of liberals do in fact live in liberal-voting cities and states…that’s why they’re liberal-voting! The land itself is neutral and lacks consciousness. Also not for nothing, many of the safest states are solidly blue. 9 of the top 10 by these measures! https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/safest-states-in-the-us.html Re: taxes it all depends on your income and situation…different states balance income, sales and property taxes differently and YMMV, plus there are not clear ideological dividing lines there in all cases.

Then why did President Trump do nothing? He spoke very frequently about Biden being corrupt and the laptop and Ukraine and etc., remember he was impeached for extorting Ukraine over alleged Biden corruption. He appointed Chris Wray to lead the FBI, after firing the previous guy. He appointed Bill Barr to lead DOJ, after firing the previous guy. He himself lead the entire executive branch as President. I’ll ask again: why was this supposed clear & obvious, open-and-shut case of Biden corruption while VP not taken care of during Trump’s four years in office?

I actually disagree with @Pooter above, although he's clearly correct in terms of realpolitik / human nature / group dynamics. I alluded to this in a post where I asked why Trump's DOJ didn't prosecute Hillary. Why did Trump and Sessions and Barr et al not do this? They absolutely could have. For all his talk of "locking her up" Trump did absolutely zero to make that happen. Speaking for myself, I do actually no-shit support prosecuting all criminals, regardless of political affiliation. If Kamala Harris shoots someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, I do want the House to impeach her and the Senate to convict her and I want all the Democrats in both chambers to support those actions. If Bill Clinton is caught on tape snorting coke off a hooker's ass in a NYC penthouse, I do expect Alvin Bragg to prosecute him. If CQ Brown sold classified info to the Agrentians for millions of dollars, I do expect Biden to fire him and for Garland's DOJ to prosecute him.* *If there is a winnable case to be made and evidence to support conviction* Y'all can bring up a bunch of stuff on Hunter and Joe and whatever and I'm not subscribed to the Biden Crime Cinematic Universe (BCCU) nearly as much as some of you guys, but there are plenty of conservative prosecutors, DAs, state AGs, etc. who could bring charges if they wanted and had jurisdiction. But they (so far) haven't. I'll give a pass to Ken Paxton down in TX, he has been a little busy with legal issues of his own 😁 Like I said above, Trump and his team also failed to do so when they pretty recently controlled DOJ and it's nationwide jurisdiction so IDK, you tell me why they failed to do what is so blindingly obvious to you. Trump talked quite a bit about Biden and Ukraine and corruption during the 2020 campaign, hell he was even impeached for trying to extort Zelensky over this exact issue, so why did he not have Barr bring charges against Hunter or Joe at that point? After the first impeachment, when Trump felt so very unfairly targeted and aggrieved, why did he not have Barr charge Hunter or fire him and find an AG who would? BL: call me naive, whatever, I don't care. The ideal is not how it works now nor ever and I get that, but that's how it should work and therefore that's what I'm going to call for and expect and support. Equal justice under the law, no one is above the law.

Y'all, I am perfectly aware of how the system currently works. In great detail. Like, do you wanna talk about NE-3 and how in a weird scenario a Dem winning that single electoral vote in an otherwise red state could seal the election for them 270-268? I am a huge f*ing elections nerd if that is not abundantly clear. All candidates should and do campaign for the EC win today and I'm not advocating for them to do otherwise until the system changes. Lol except maybe Hillary who f-ing forgot to campaign in WI 🤦‍♂️ That being said, I would like the system to be different. The NPVIC is a viable and Constitutional way this might happen one day not too long from now. BL: I would like the national popular vote winner to win the election, just like in every other election at every level. I understand the reasons why the founders set up the electoral college, the compromise between rural and at-the-time urban states, but I disagree that it's continuing to serve a valid purpose today. The country is vastly different in 2023 than when the Constitution was written. Like I said, it's a vestigial anachronism of the 1700s that's downsides outweigh any remaining benefit. I also disagree that eliminating the EC would cause the nation to disintegrate, we're way stronger than that, and there is no state that would be better off on it's own than as part of the United States. Also today's divides are not longer regional but are urban/rural. People in Missoula have more in common politically with people in Madison or Austin or NYC than the rest of the state, and vice-versa for the rural parts of most states. I also really do support eliminating the EC on principal, regardless of the fact that it's also painful that it hurts my preferred political party and has cost us the Presidency now twice. Like I posted before, if Kerry had become President over Bush due to a narrow EC win paired with a popular vote loss, A) I would have still thought that was unfair even though I much preferred Kerry in that race, and B) I firmly believe the GOP would have suddenly "seen the light" and joined the Dems to eliminate the EC forever. Outstanding, I'd love to read your response if you ever want to post it. There is a whole cottage industry of think-pieces on why this is, what to do about it, etc. I've read a lot of them. The most persuasive ones either point to needing a nationally transcendent figure like Obama who just beats the pants off of his opponent, delivering states like Indiana and really cutting into typical GOP rural margins, or you need the type of Dem who is perhaps more in line with rural attitudes on trade, immigration, etc., someone like Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan in Ohio, etc. I don't disagree that's what you'd need to improve rural margins. What the last couple of elections have shown though, 2018-2022, is that as the electorate continues to change and morph and people move and etc., that Dems really don't have to make a ton of progress in truly rural areas. Not that you write them off, but that you can live even with 80-20 margins, similar to how Republicans do in cities. The suburbs remain king and even when you lose a bit of margin in the urban cores (as Biden did comprated to Hillary 2020 to 2016), you can more than make up for it by campaigning hard in and winning the suburbs. So finding out what appeals to your wine moms, your 9-5 officer worker guys, etc. and not getting too suckered into what Billy Bob on the farm or Devonte in the inner city is most concerned with (oh no, stereotypes!), that's a viable path to win. This is the path Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock took in GA, Gretchen Whitmer took in MI, and the path Biden took in GA, AZ, MI & PA that delivered him the White House. Happy to discuss in detail anytime brother, it truly is my wheelhouse of nerdery 🍺

Yes. I truly wish Kerry would have barely won Ohio in 2004, thus giving him the presidency while losing the popular vote. Both parties would have ditched the thing straight away. It’s a vestigial anachronism that modern America no longer needs. The person with the most votes should win, period, just like in literally every other election we hold.

I too support ending the electoral college and yet I can still say I support the constitution! I bet you hold a view like that too. I also think SCOTUS decisions like Heller and Citizens United were wrong, even though because of those decisions, the constitution currently means things I don't think are correct. I would venture you may have felt the same way about Roe or any number other SCOTUS decisions, and I know a few conservatives that would move to repeal various amendments (e.g. 17th amendment) if they could. Many conservative legal experts have big plans to overturn even more currently constitutionally protected rights via their control of the Supreme Court. So it’s not like there is some fixed, sacred thing here beyond some bare basics. What the constitution says can and will continue to change both by passing or repealing amendments (very rare now), or mostly via the courts. Prozac saying he’s in favor of some changes in legal ways (such as the NPVIC) is perfectly normal and not some kind of sacrilege against the founders.

As and you shall receive! 6.9 seconds on google:

If a prosecutor believes they have a case against Hunter Biden, they should go for it! Seriously! I have never understood the idea that those of us in the left love Hunter Biden and are somehow seeking to protect him 🤷‍♂️ IDGAF about that guy, he seems like a dirtbag, and I would never ever vote for him to hold public office. As far as Trump “not being allowed to participate” lolol ok. He ran for President twice already and WAS President for 4 years despite many, many scandals & criminal/legal allegations that would have sunk any “normal” person 10x over. Don’t do crimes if you want to be President, that doesn’t seem like too much to ask. The fact that he is in such a high-profile position and Jack Smith and the FL grand jury decided to charge him anyways is telling. I guarantee if he had cooperated and given back the documents (like Pence and Biden), he would have gotten that much-derided elite pass too, and people on the left would be all mad about how he slipped his way past accountability once again.

My party and the country at large already did this once TYVM 😎 It’s on Republicans to do what you’ve described above right now, in the primary. It ain’t going great so far, NGL! If Trump is the 2024 GOP nominee I’ll do everything I can to help him repeat the L he took in 2020, ideally even bigger. My BL legal theory here is very simple: if you do crimes and there is a clear case a prosecutor thinks they can win based on the evidence, they should bring the case and you should be charged. If a judge/jury finds you guilty, you should be punished. Full stop. No one is above the law. The only exception is the few offices where the constitution prescribes impeachment instead. If our system has failed at sometime in the past to achieve that ideal, which it absolutely has, we should work hard to fix it going forward. Especially hard to not repeat the exact same mistakes time and time again. Elites bypassing the justice system “normal” people would face is one such repeated mistake I am fully on board with aggressively correcting back to ideal on. We can do this right now! And I think the Trump federal indictment is a good example of holding elites accountable for pretty obvious crimes…hard to get more elite than him and he’s on tape saying he did what the charges alledge. I teach this as a moral code to my kids and I think it’s pretty much 100% in line with the values our country was founded upon. Golden rule, don’t dream small, do your best, if you make mistakes do better next time, and don’t make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Other slipperier legal theories re: Hillary, Trump, etc. just don’t hold a lot of weight to me, at least as they’ve been explained here.

If you think Hillary should have been charged and it was a grave injustice for her to slip away relatively unscathed at least legally, you should also be an enthusiastic proponent of Trump facing real justice for very similar, and I would argue more serious, alleged crimes. Why would you not be other than just naked partisanship or a false belief in “makeup calls” where two wrongs somehow make a right?

So no political leaders or declared candidates should be charged with crimes so we can “let the democratic process play out?” What alternative process do you recommend for charging people you think are currently unjustly going on with life? Was there not ample time and opportunity for Trump’s DOJ to charge Hillary if the case was there, even if just for pure political payback? Surely there was. Why did Sessions, Barr or others fail to do that? Can a prosecutor not bring charges against private citizen Hunter Biden if they wanted to? That is fine by me if there is a case a prosecutor thinks they can win. Charging sitting President Biden is highly unlikely because the legal remedy for crimes committed by the President is impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate, a process which we just so happens to have recently done! If the GOP House wants to impeach Biden tomorrow and send that trial to the Senate, ok, bring up the charges and do it. My view is that any political leader who committed crimes so serious that a prosecutor decided to seek charges and a grand jury actually brought the charges, that’s good, we should have them face the legal system. Failing to do this is just as bad a system as nakedly political charges for everyone the minute they leave office or the political winds shift. I guess I’m most troubled by you saying, “Until that comes, yeah I’d rather we not go jailing political rivals for crimes we know the other side committed.” I don’t agree. Lots of flaws and assumptions there, but also that’s just not how our legal system works. The second best time to do the right thing is right now.

Let me be clear, even though I don’t agree in full on the premise here. Many people on the right I think believe that: Hillary, the official Dem nominee for President at the time, mishandled classified information in a way worthy of felony charges. Yet for various reasons, she was let off the hook. We buggered that one! So mad!! AND Trump, the leading person for the GOP nomination today, also mishandled classified information in a way that in fact has brought felony charges. Despite this (in your mind) very similar situation, you’re now determined to exactly repeat the mistakes of the past, for what, political fairness? Equality? Is that correct?

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You do believe that Hillary should have been charged, but specifically because she wasn’t, you now don’t think Trump should be charged now either. Is this correct? Is that what you teach your kids? Two wrongs make a right?

RPA specific: the the Guard DSG bonus went up to $30K (from $15K) while the AGR bonus remained the same at $35K. Makes staying a DSG an even easier decision, you’re barely missing out on any bonus money at all! For manned it’s up to $50K for AGR. ANG FY23 AvB Implementation Policy_Final.pdf

Even if you believe this is true WRT Dems vs GOP, which I don’t agree but can understand why people feel this way…does that change how we should handle Trump’s case right now? Should the refs do make-up calls or do we just say oh well, every Congressman and higher are just exempt from these laws or what? Im genuinely asking. If you think trump did nothing wrong, ok. But if you think he seems guilty of these charges and they are for similar actions to what Hillary or anyone else on the left has done in the past…how do you handle his case? We can’t change the past, but we can decide the future. Magic wand, you’re the judge, what do you do?

I’m just laughing how Hillary Clinton still lives rent free in so many heads. Screw her, she’s gone and never holding office of any kind ever again! If you wanna charge her and are able to do so, be my guest! Meanwhile right now the leading contender for the GOP nomination just got indicted for 38 felony counts and is on tape basically saying he did exactly what he is charged with! The best time to start doing the right thing was the day you were born, the second best time is right freaking now. Trump’s actions are not defendable, are inexplicable for any legitimate purpose, and IMHO are pretty clearly criminal. Regardless of what happened in the past, which we cannot change, we should move forward with appropriate justice. If anyone on the right is big mad today and then at some point in the future is able to convene a grand jury to charge a Democratic Party leader, staffer, etc. for crimes this egregious, I will say it again in non-meme form: your terms are acceptable. No one is above the law.

It gets everywhere…

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yes-chad It’s just a meme and a funnier way to say yes, forcefully. I’m only a mod on the CSO page that no one ever posts on lol & I have no fuckin idea how the swearing moderation works 😅

Are illegal immigrants slaves or something? Because that’s not allowed anymore. If they are we seriously should take action, you’re right! Free persons in the context of no slavery and no 3/5ths compromise = everyone who lives there, period. I did not make up this rule nor is it impossible to change if you’d like, I’m just telling you that’s what is in the constitution & subsequent judicial rulings about the census.

There is no race for the GOP nomination save for Trump’s serious legal peril. Either he wipes the floor with everyone else (already polling > 50% among primary voters), or he DNF’s the race and now it’s actually a competition between DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence, et. al. If there was maybe one serious challenger or two and some of the usual cranks, ok, normal race probably, Trump isn’t truly an incumbent although he kind of is as far as the GOP base is concerned. But to have MANY serious challengers get in the race, your own former VP, large state sitting governor, former governor and ambassador, sitting senator, plus former governor Christie just got in and so did the sitting governor of ND Burgum, to me that indicates they all think there’s a fairly high chance Trump will be unable to be the nominee regardless of his level of support, and therefore it’s worthwhile to give it a shot.