19
OmegaSupreme 19 points ago +19 / -0

I would like to ask that God might have mercy upon a people that, I truly believe in my heart, has been doing all it's known how to do to repent and turn back to Him, but has been thwarted at every turn by a monolithic evil that seems always to be several steps ahead. We can't see any of this through without His help and need it more than we ever have before. Thanks.

8
OmegaSupreme 8 points ago +9 / -1

Agreed. This scenario would explain a LOT of things that up to now have not added up at all, Trump going quiet and walking away after 1/6 maybe chief among them.

I cannot believe the military would tolerate a CiC as thoroughly compromised by the CCP, and who committed the most blatant fraud in the history of America toward the potential result of handing the CCP control of America's nuclear arsenal, as Biden. If this isn't a red line, I don't know what would be.

And I don't think most people calling for the IA really considered how that might play out. So the scenario is also a plausible means for the military to address this situation in a way that kept the veneer of proper civilian legal control (using SCOTUS as a fig leaf) and hopefully keeping public confidence.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

And just look how much you accomplished, LARPer. Incredible results. Thank You For Your Service.

6
OmegaSupreme 6 points ago +6 / -0

When NPR goes down I'll cry laughing.

2
OmegaSupreme 2 points ago +2 / -0

You haven't done shit.

13
OmegaSupreme 13 points ago +13 / -0

Mike Lindell is a great rise-from-the-ashes American story and a true patriot.

Because of him.... the country can sleep soundly.

Love ya Mike, I'm gonna go buy another pillow from you now.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump shutting up, giving up, and walking away is like Luke Skywalker fucking off to a faraway alien rock to drink manatee milk for the rest of his life and throwing his lightsaber away when someone tried to hand it to him to coax him back into the fight. I didn't buy that shit for one minute and I don"t buy this either.

2
OmegaSupreme 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fact: A private citizen cannot be put through a Senate trial to be convicted and removed from an office he does not hold. For the DS to attempt to do so to Trump is the most blatantly unconstitutional banana-republic bullshit they've tried yet, and that's really saying something. Article II, Section 4 spells out quite clearly what the purpose of impeachment is, and that it applies to SITTING presidents.

15
OmegaSupreme 15 points ago +21 / -6

Ted Cruz is a snake, always has been a snake, always will be a snake. He has never done anything that wasn't designed toward the advancement of Ted Cruz.

He's not a stupid snake, though. After being booed off the convention stage in 2016, he figured out real fast that in order to keep his own presidential hopes alive for the long term, he had to make peace with MAGA supporters and pretend to be on Trump's side. Which he did very effectively over four years of empty, red-meat-throwing Senate kabuki.

In the end, though, Trump winning in 2020 was a bar to Ted's own ambitions. It set back his calendar for the highest likelihood of winning the presidency himself by years. So he put up a pretty good front of pretending to fight the election fraud while still accomplishing absolutely nothing, which has been his M.O. for his entire Senate career. (Boy, did Ted own Dorsey and Zuckerberg in those Big Tech hearings that resulted in less than zero action, eh? Didn't he sound just great?!)

It was little risk to Ted to offer to argue the Texas case in front of SCOTUS, or to put forward a half-hearted, suspiciously-convoluted 10-day plan for challenging the electors in Congress when he knew perfectly well what the Court was going to do and what Pence was going to do. Remember how long it took to get him on board with challenging the electors? Don't you think a guy as well-versed in parliamentary tactics as he is, and who believed so strongly in the strength of the Texas case that he was willing to argue it before the Court himself, would have committed to the electoral challenge the day after SCOTUS took a pass on the case?

Theater. Ted's in all of this up to his eyeballs right along with the rest of them. He'll probably have his 2024 PAC up and running by the weekend. It's long past time we stopped falling for his bullshit.

2
OmegaSupreme 2 points ago +2 / -0

TDW?

Don't you mean Patriotical Patrioting Patriotism Dot Win?

This would be the place that didn't even wait 24 hours from Trump's departure to scrub his name from the site. It's so obviously compromised at this point that I don't know why any actual supporter would go there. It's become a low-IQ, low-energy frat party where whatever actual Trump supporters are left are talking to bots and FBI plants.

"Q Man Bad" is just the foundational narrative over there now, as it seems to have become in all conservative circles that want to accuse Q supporters of being lulled away from "Doing Something", without ever offering a clue as to what that "Something" would have been or why, the entire time, the accusers themselves apparently weren't doing it either.

0
OmegaSupreme 0 points ago +1 / -1

Tell it to your mother, illiterate fuckwit.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Senate cannot hold a trial to convict and remove a non-officeholder. The further punishment of disqualification cannot be pursued against someone for whom no Senate trial can be held. The ENTIRE process of presidential impeachment and trial, as spelled out in the letter and obvious intent of the Constitution, assumes a sitting president.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well you're wrong that a legitimate or Constitutional trial can be carried out, and I've already explained why. "Because it's going to be" isn't a valid reason. Sorry you're not interested in arguing, though.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

They cannot, Constitutionally, conduct a TRIAL. He is not in office. He cannot be removed from an office he does not hold, which is the entire purpose of impeachment. Any further proceedings would be a punitive and illegal showtrial of a private citizen.

0
OmegaSupreme 0 points ago +1 / -1

No, that's exactly how it works -- Article II, Section 4 specifies impeachment as a remedy for REMOVING a sitting president from office. Nowhere is it specified or inferred that impeachment is something that can be used against a FORMER president. A former president, as a private citizen, is subject to the legal jurisdiction of the court system and not Congress.

So Trump literally CANNOT be impeached, any more than you or I or anyone else could. It's absurd. Otherwise, the impeachment process could be weaponized to pre-emptively bar literally anybody from government they wanted to keep out.

Unless, of course, Congress is signaling by pursuing this that there's something we don't know about.

8
OmegaSupreme 8 points ago +8 / -0

I just blew 21 synapses in my brain thinking about this.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've been wondering whether it might not be worth reevaluating Carter. He was a failed president, but in the wake of the overwhelming and lasting popularity of the guy who replaced him Carter has never had the chance at a fair historical shake. (It hasn't helped that conservative media has entrenched him in the role of fall-guy boob for all these years, his only purpose in the play having been to fail and set the stage for the ascent of Ronaldus Magnus, who of course could do no wrong).

Again, that's not to say that Carter was anywhere close to a good president. I'm not old enough to remember his administration but am aware of the state things were in, in 1980 -- Iranian revolution, hostages, heavy inflation, double-digit interest rates, energy crisis, Soviet expansionism, general malaise and fucked-uppedness -- that made it obvious why he was kicked out on his ass. Carter was weak and completely overwhelmed in the job. But whatever else he was or wasn't, it sure doesn't seem like he was in "The Club" the way every single president in between Reagan and Trump were and are, and I don't think he was on a deliberate mission to take America down (just an accidental one through incompetence). The envelopes are just one clue.

by AE13FE
1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +2 / -1

Goddamn you're exponentially dumber when this is the best argument you can make against a dumb person.

by Evspra
7
OmegaSupreme 7 points ago +8 / -1

----"Child trafficking is really not as prevalent as you think. You guys need to chill out. You're grossly overestimating the severity of this issue. Really, just relax. Okay? It's gonna be fine. Obviously I'm strongly against child trafficking, as we all are. But it's an extremely misunderstood issue."----

STRONGLY AGAINST.

There's a DNC email in this guy's inbox subject-lined "Don't Help Us."

5
OmegaSupreme 5 points ago +5 / -0

No, actually I don't see how Q had anything to do with that at all.

I do find it interesting how hard the full-court press has been -- from both right and left -- to make Q and Q supporters the whipping boy for this and everything else they can think of, and how suddenly that concentrated blame seemed to flip on like a light switch on 1/6.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unfortunately "Stolen Valor" isn't a deport option for failed nobodies whose decorations came from Call of Duty achievements, so I'll just pick another one.

1
OmegaSupreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

At times we're all here for some LOLs to take the edge off. That's where you come in.

6
OmegaSupreme 6 points ago +7 / -1

'Cause the greatest look in the world for that place, on top of everything else that's been going on there, is to strip Trump's name from it on Day One of the "Biden Administration". Fuck that. Staying far away.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›