GOP Plan to End America

Jcal447

Walk On
Gold Member
May 30, 2012
212
745
93
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

Many of you are afraid of what “time” will uncover. I’ll wait for the truth and audits.
Also, do yourself a favor and stop watching the news. All if it.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
1) Directly from the 2020 Libertarian Party platform:

"3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

2) Aren't lawyers necessary to a system of courts to settle disputes?
they are. We just have 1000x too many of them, lol. It's destroyed the medical profession, can at least say that. And absolutely would support the removal of gov't regulation, pretty much any form of FEDERAL gov't regulation. It's grown into a monster that founding fathers never intended, and would be much more efficiently run by local and state governments.
 

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,219
8,176
113
The audit is happening right now. The same courts that setup the fraud can't be relied upon to overturn the system they created (Unconstitutionally). You prefer the foxes guarding the hen house, so bury your head in the sand for another 3 1/2 years.
You have to be trolling or you are the dumbest person on the face of the earth. Which is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,248
20,253
113
they are. We just have 1000x too many of them, lol. It's destroyed the medical profession, can at least say that. And absolutely would support the removal of gov't regulation, pretty much any form of FEDERAL gov't regulation. It's grown into a monster that founding fathers never intended, and would be much more efficiently run by local and state governments.
So you support open borders?
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,705
11,774
113
they are. We just have 1000x too many of them, lol. It's destroyed the medical profession, can at least say that. And absolutely would support the removal of gov't regulation, pretty much any form of FEDERAL gov't regulation. It's grown into a monster that founding fathers never intended, and would be much more efficiently run by local and state governments.

We'd never have been a world power had we held to the strict intentions of 1788
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
So you support open borders?
legal immigration that results in ppl paying taxes, yes. Unfettered walking across the border and receiving federal benefits and voting, not so much. I'd depart from that part of the party's 'official platform'. Government doesn't need to grow to secure the border. Fully support a border wall. And an army well-trained attack dogs...
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,248
20,253
113
legal immigration that results in ppl paying taxes, yes. Unfettered walking across the border and receiving federal benefits and voting, not so much. I'd depart from that part of the party's 'official platform'. Government doesn't need to grow to secure the border. Fully support a border wall. And an army well-trained attack dogs...
That's not what libitarians want, they want NO restrictions at all to travel across borders.

If they had their way it wouldn't be possible to have an "illegal" immigrant 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zar45

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,719
6,065
113
legal immigration that results in ppl paying taxes, yes. Unfettered walking across the border and receiving federal benefits and voting, not so much. I'd depart from that part of the party's 'official platform'. Government doesn't need to grow to secure the border. Fully support a border wall. And an army well-trained attack dogs...
Who is advocating "unfettered walking across the border and receiving federal benefits and voting"? Because if there is ANYONE, they sure don't represent a significant element of any mainstream political party. And if you think so, you're delusional.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
That's not what libitarians want, they want NO restrictions at all to travel across borders.

If they had their way it wouldn't be possible to have an "illegal" immigrant 🤷‍♂️
I’m a Neal Boortz libertarian. There can be differing opinions within the same party…
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,248
20,253
113
I’m a Neal Boortz libertarian. There can be differing opinions within the same party…
no this isn't how it works, you guys label any person that goes against Trump as lib/commy/socialist.

Trumpers are the epitome of "toe the line" or your not "one of us"
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
no this isn't how it works, you guys label any person that goes against Trump as lib/commy/socialist.

Trumpers are the epitome of "toe the line" or your not "one of us"
Nah just try and call em as I see em. Biden’s not a socialist, he’s a used up career politician, racist, and scumbag opportunist, no less guilty. camela is socialist vermin. And don’t think all dems want socialism/globalism and probably a health % that would better identify with libertarian ideals. Not all registered libertarians want open borders. We don’t give a shit about social issues so long as it doesn’t affect us. Federal gov’t was intended to maintain the border, originally at least. One of the three main purposes. I dunno about the platform you referenced, but open borders is definitely not a traditional libertarian stance, not even close
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nelsonj22

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,248
20,253
113
1) Directly from the 2020 Libertarian Party platform:

"3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

2) Aren't lawyers necessary to a system of courts to settle disputes?

I dunno about the platform you referenced, but open borders is definitely not a traditional libertarian stance, not even close
Well what do you interpret "unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders" to mean?

Also you'll have to take that up with Zar and they usually cover their ass pretty well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
AKA "as long as it's minorities getting shit on who gives a fvck" 😬
Not even a little. Abortion. Religion. Gender confusion is starting to affect stuff. No one likes seeing minorities getting shit on, unless they’re truly racist. Like Biden :)
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
Well what do you interpret "unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders" to mean?

Also you'll have to take that up with Zar and they usually cover their ass pretty well.
Don’t agree with that specific part of their platform. Referenced Boortz who’s widely known as one of the greatest voices for the cause, and he Definitely wasn’t a proponent.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,937
12,521
113
I know how you're getting your numbers, I've reverse engineered your "formula" or "empirical assessment" several times:




I even analyzed every county equivalent in the last three elections using your "formula" or "empirical assessment", showing that your "impossible vote distribution" is actually normal.



I even specified Cobb County's last election, using official numbers, with an outcome that you claim is "impossible".




You fail to grasp that the majority of Americans do not fit into the Republican or Democrat worldview you ascribe to them. Many of them have complex worldviews that cut across all sorts of ideologies. Many of them have poorly thought out worldviews and/or don't care to think about it too much at all. Many of them vote based solely on visceral reactions. It's an average of cerebral, emotional, social, etc. decisions that are what they've always been: not intentional, wild swings from fascist to communist ideologies; but the will of The People, on average, in the myriad of ways they make their decisions.
Man, there's a lot of stuff there, but none of it explains such a one-sided outcome in a county like this.

Then the stuff about what I apparently "fail to grasp" (although everything you said in that paragraph is in the "Captain Obvious" category) has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, and how this was repeated in many key urban and suburban counties.

I wish you would spend as much time "reverse engineering" all of the claims of voter suppression made by the left.

There are some basic truths here that transcend the numbers that we're arguing about:

1) Democrats don't want voter ID because they claim that it makes it harder to legitimately vote, which is really bullshit because anyone can get an ID with minimal effort and people need an ID to basically function in the society. The real reason that the democrats don't want voter ID is because it makes it very hard to fraudulently vote.

2) Democrats want automatic registration to vote because they claim that it make it easier for people who have trouble voting. This is despite the fact that it's totally easy to register to vote in EVERY state if you're a citizen. The real reason that the democrats want automatic registration is because it makes it easier to fraudulently vote.

3) Democrats want to send out absentee ballots to everyone, unsolicited, and have no excuse absentee balloting because they say that it makes it easier for all of these poor people to vote. The reality is that it's freaking easy to vote for almost everyone, and for those where it's not, there are systems in place to make sure that they can vote. The real reason that democrats want unsolicited absentee ballots sent out to everyone is that it makes it a lot easier to harvest millions of ballots and use them to cast votes for their candidate fraudulently.

The main reason that all of the arguments the democrats make against sound voting laws are bullshit is because these voter laws treat everyone equally and there is no good reason for opposing them. None of these laws favors any party, race, or point of view. The poor rural person who doesn't have an ID could be of any race or political persuasion. Democrats want these controls eliminated because they get in the way of their systematic stuffing of the ballot box, which is the only way that they can consistently win in most jurisdictions.

Voting needs to be carefully controlled and procedurally monitored, because people will cheat if given the chance. It's should require some effort to get to vote and that effort should be spent by all people who want to participate in democracy. The democrats oppose this, because they know that they can't win a majority unless the system allows fraud.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nelsonj22

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,937
12,521
113
You're getting closer, but still not quite there. One major flaw in your logic, we have no idea how these 66K "new voters" voted. Right off the bat, your claim that Biden got 90% of these "new votes" is incorrect. In fact, your 90% value really isn't measuring anything at all. What we can say for certain (based off your table) is that Biden got ~60K more votes than Hillary, and Trump got ~7K more votes than he did in 2016.

Instead. A better assumption would be the "new votes" were split 50/50 between Trump and Biden. That would mean that ~7-8% of folks that voted for Trump in 2016 switched and voted for Biden in 2020. Do you think that seems plausible? That 1 in 10 people were turned off by how Trump worked for 4 years and instead went with a fairly conservative democrat.

Also, something that contains addition, subtraction, and division is, by definition, a formula.
Very few people in Cobb County who voted for Trump in 2016 changed their vote to Biden. If anything, it went the other way.
 

jsachisler

Senior
Gold Member
Jul 6, 2005
2,528
831
113
75
chadron, ne.
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

typical demo, reaction. but its ok if the dems do it.
 

Latest posts