Quote from: Logic Sandwich on Today at 09:37:27 AMsure had no problem with Bill Clinton being their governor after all.

I don't know that he meant "only in the south", just that Arkansas enjoys a reputation for deviant sexual practices. They sure had no problem with Bill Clinton being their governor after all.

Quote from: Oerdin on May 24, 2024, 08:10:12 AMI will believe it when I see the voting results.

Precisely. Still, Trump drawing a large crowd in the Bronx is cause for concern among the Dem leadership.

Quote from: caskur on May 24, 2024, 02:40:26 PMPelosi has retired I believe... that is a good thing.

Nope, she is running for congress again this year. She is eighty four and worth a fortune, all of it derived from her elected office. I guess she doesn't have enough yet.

I remember watching Gabbard wipe the floor with Kamala Harris in 2016. Tulsi's positions and priorities have changed since then.

I think she could win over some independents. I also think she could be an effective communicator for Trump's policies. But, Mike Pence was at one time too.

Quote from: Odinson on Today at 07:08:43 AMChinese Optimus Prime.

Quote from: Logic Sandwich on Today at 08:47:10 AMWell it served its purpose didn't it? The church lost great currency in the court of public opinion, up to and including the casting of its scriptures as effectively hate speech, priests being arrested for carrying bibles in their pocket. Houses of worship are being defaced and burned down by ANTIFA goons to this day.

The whole reason the story got any traction in the first place was because "muh poor downtrodden minority"... with the ongoing persecution of that religious chapter, do you not think the bleeding hearts might start bleeding for the ongoing persecution of religious practitioners? I think there's a good chance that they might, and that would put them at odds with the assholes that lied their arses off to slander and smear the church in the first place.

There's your reason why retractions aren't coming thick and fast, why there's no wall to wall coverage of "hey, we were lied to, we cannot find the bones".

I'm not convinced that was it's purpose.

Quote from: Thiel on May 23, 2024, 08:32:01 PMHow much are you sending?

In terms of derision and scorn? As much as I care to spare. I am thoroughly enjoying that fat wriggling maggot's fall from grace.

Quote from: Brent on May 22, 2024, 02:15:01 PMI haven't heard a peep about this recently.

Progs abandoned that cause quick.

Well it served its purpose didn't it? The church lost great currency in the court of public opinion, up to and including the casting of its scriptures as effectively hate speech, priests being arrested for carrying bibles in their pocket. Houses of worship are being defaced and burned down by ANTIFA goons to this day.

The whole reason the story got any traction in the first place was because "muh poor downtrodden minority"... with the ongoing persecution of that religious chapter, do you not think the bleeding hearts might start bleeding for the ongoing persecution of religious practitioners? I think there's a good chance that they might, and that would put them at odds with the assholes that lied their arses off to slander and smear the church in the first place.

There's your reason why retractions aren't coming thick and fast, why there's no wall to wall coverage of "hey, we were lied to, we cannot find the bones".

Quote from: Shen Li on Today at 01:14:55 AMAmerica needs more indy thinkers like Tulsi Gabbard in office. She would make a terrific prez in 2028.

I'm cautiously optimistic where she is concerned. I seem to recall she was anti-gun for a while and I personally see the value of a "regulated militia" (as defined under the founding fathers parlance) to defend against bad faith actors, both foreign and domestic. Particularly when those bad faith actors happen to have found their way into the government. It helped the colonies in their struggle against their British overlords before, I have no doubt it would serve them admirably now if they would but exercise the provisions made them under the constitution and its amendments.

I will say that Tulsi appears to have tempered her opposition to the idea of a regulated militia in recent years. She also impressed me greatly by showing a preference for negotiation with foreign leaders than simply sending in the troops. Copped a lot of flack for her penchant from others in the Democratic party ranks too which indicated to me that she is not on the same page as them. Good. The democratic party is a fucking cancer in my opinion, so is the republican party for the most part, though the dems really take the biscuit when it comes to being blatantly obvious about it.

For a leader to earn my vote, they must first demonstrate they are willing to represent my interests. I will accept that I am one of many and that others interests should be represented as well; that is and should be part and parcel of the groundswell of popularity that gets our guy or gal into the office. What I will not accept is someone who owes their allegiance to party ideology first. If the party is going all out to get their hate on for a particular political figure (as the democrats did with Ms Gabbard) I am inclined to look a little closer at the hated figure and decide for myself if there is something there I might support in the expectation of receiving in kind.

Or to put it another way, if Tulsi keeps going in the direction I see her as going, I would welcome her as a candidate in future elections. Should she snag the VP slot (fingers crossed that she does) I cannot think of any more visible platform for her to prove her mettle (good or bad) for a future presidential run.