Honest question. What exactly is the point of holding the line if the military is going to save us anyway?
Seesh, can you at least save the goal-post moving for until after the 20th?
Huh, that's not an angle I considered before...
If I was DS then not wanting two Chinas but one China and one 'middle-ground' controlled opposition does make sense. But making it a reality is the part that doesn't make sense.
He's the 'tough on crime' guy.
Ofc a lot of cops are going to support him.
Damn, seems like I've been severely underestimating you guys /s
There's also the fourth option where someone is projecting harder than a power point presentation.
Either way it's been a wild ride.
At this point I can only believe all of this is;
a real effort to partially inform the public ahead of time before the big event
or
a psyop to placate people from acting before it's too late
and nothing in between.
Leftist logic : Aha! I knew it! White supremacists are everywhere and control everything!
I believe the military will wait a week and then publically announce martial law because of the Democrat coup.
Ehh I'm drawing the line at inauguration, anything beyond that sounds like wishful goalpost moving.
That logic could be stretched to something to the tune of 'the military needs one term to gather more evidence for tribunals and secure public opinion by showing how bad things will be under commy control'.
Plus it would be easy to manufacture 'strange events/coincidences' that seem to point to a potential happenings once one gets the amount of control the Uniparty will potentially have if they succeed in rigging gaffmaster general in to office.
Thanks for replying. Sincere responses from people who support the same people as you do are so rare thus makes it difficult to understand them.
Just letting you know cause I can't continue this discussion and need to move on.
Doesn't answer my core question.
UBI is merely a poster child of examples. Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist and Tulsi also leans towards bigger government in all her flip-flops (though I admit her flip-flops are far more grounded in reality compared to other Dems). Heathcare is great thing but also another project that requires massive funds.
So again, I can't see how increasing government involvement by creating more justification for bigger 'takes' is conducive to libertarian values in any way.
*just to be clear, I'm not talking in 'right or wrong' basis but in terms of 'conflicting directions'
'F' for Qatar, Quiznos, Quake, the Queen, Quantum anything, etc etc
I'm confused. Those are peoples who's policies are largely centered around some kind of government handout.
A government doesn't generate a single cent. They take and redistribute.
Stuff like UBI will require a huge ramp-up of 'take' and I can't see how that is in any way conducive towards libertarian values.
Is it typical for all justices to be present for inauguration? Given their previous history, I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence doesn't want to be in the same room as Biden let alone attend an inauguration for Alzheimer-in-chief.
There's also a much more plausible and simpler explanation for the 'Flag setup instead of people'. They didn't want to expose the embarrassingly small crowd Sniffy Joe brings out on live camera.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no beef with you guys but I'm a bit concerned you may end up being a dividing force when the time for action comes, with the 'the military will save us so stay out of the way' attitude.
And the time for action will come whether it be big or small. People who are asleep even up to this day will be forcefully waken up due to the Dem-pression the DS will eventually wreck upon the world economy.