Question for MAGA supporters

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Better than burning down the capitol and assaulting police officers 

Nah, it’s not! Haven’t you ever broken stuff, crapped on the floor, burned one where you shouldn’t have to release stress? Should try it sometime. Maybe go to one of those smash em up places? Plus, 2 alleged “cry sessions” need to be investigated because you know, nothing else is happening in the affairs of state.

DarthMaeglin

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

Halifax2TheMax

DarthMaeglin said:

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

Hmmmmmm, no.

DarthMaeglin

Halifax2TheMax said:

DarthMaeglin said:

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

Hmmmmmm, no.

When one presumably answers questions honestly and gets a reply questioning their genuineness, that’s how it reads to me.

battle1

shecky said:

Blinken questioned for State Department hosting in-house therapy sessions after Trump win

Issa demanded Blinken reveal how much the sessions cost the State Department

By Michael Lee Fox News

Published November 24, 2024 4:08pm EST

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., took aim at Secretary of State Antony Blinken after it was reported that the State Department held therapy sessions for employees who were upset by President-elect Trump’s election victory.

"I am concerned that the Department is catering to federal employees who are personally devastated by the normal functioning of American democracy through the provision of government-funded mental health counseling because Kamala Harris was not elected President of the United States," Issa said in a letter to Blinken last week.

The letter comes after a Free Beacon report earlier this month that detailed two alleged therapy sessions that were held at the State Department after Trump’s victory, with sources telling the outlet that one such instance amounted to an information "cry session."

In another instance, an email went out to agency employees and touted a separate  "insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times" after Trump’s victory, according to the report.

"Change is a constant in our lives, but it can often bring about stress and uncertainty," the email said. "Join us for an insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times. This session will provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well being."

In his letter to Blinken, Issa argued that the reported sessions were "disturbing" and that "nonpartisan government officials" should not be suffering a "personal meltdown over the result of a free and fair election."

While the Republican lawmaker acknowledged that the mental health of the agency’s employees was important, he questioned the use of taxpayer dollars to counsel those upset about the election, demanding answers on how many sessions have been conducted, how many more are planned, and how much the sessions are costing the department.

Issa also raised fears that the sessions could also call into question the willingness of some of the State Department's employees to carry out Trump’s new vision for the agency.

"The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue and implement," the letter said. "The Trump Administration has a mandate for wholesale change in the foreign policy arena, and if foreign service officers cannot follow through on the American people’s preferences, they should resign and seek a political appointment in the next Democrat administration."

The State Department did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.

Jesus Christ, Shecky, where yaat??  I'm taking heavy artillery here been waiting on reinforcements all day. 

While I truly do not like anything about 47, I have to say I don't hate you for your position, Shecky.  I know what you and teske and others take in this place and its no way to go forward.  We are fellow Americans, it's time to tone down the rhetoric.  I will apologize on behalf of the many level headed Democrats out here for the despicable treatment you all have face in wake of your victory.  You have the right to enjoy your victory.  It is part of the process.  America will remain the Greatest, as always before, and for the next 4 years, and beyond.  

battle1

DarthMaeglin said:

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

That pretty much sums it up around here.  

Almost? 

battle1

mookieblalock said:

battle1 said:

mookieblalock said:

battle1 said:

mookieblalock said:

mookieblalock said:

battle1 said:

mookieblalock said:

battle1 said:

benjs said:

battle1 said:

benjs said:

josevolution said:

Choccoloccotide said:

teskeinc said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCflayIt4aK/?igsh=MXRsb2c4c2h1bTExeg==

He does the two hand jobs dance really well got him that 😂 he must be getting ready for when he meets up with Putin & Rocket man 

Looks like ‘middle out’. https://youtu.be/0rhdOt9bOHE?si=TSPG2171htqtULjD

Another intuitive remark/post from a Canadian.  Thank you for your valuable input.  

1. I'm a dual citizen. Even if I weren't, I still wouldn't require your permission to post here. If you don't like what I have to say, block me
2. I treat others with the respect they show on here, that's why I have the displeasure of writing to you directly for the first time. 

Have a day.

No one said you needed permission.  Let’s not get sensitive and dramatic, Ben.  I hope you are coping well. Take care of yourself. 

Complaining on a message board about politics = being dramatic

Storming the capitol to prevent a peaceful transfer of power = appropriate behavior

This clarification has been helpful for many of us on planet Earth.

Are you implying these are my beliefs?  Yet another one...

I am definitely implying that. 

Do you denounce the civilians who stormed the Capitol? Do you think it was justified? Do you think they should have been jailed?

No response?

Sorry, I missed your follow up initially.  You are only one of a handful who decided to attack me all day.  My apologies, your answers have been provided.  

You don’t answer. I definitely know why.

Your answers are 3 posts up.  Easy on the trigger finger.  I know it's difficult.  

You can answer. I can choose not to believe you.  You don’t seem like the honorable type. 

You seem like the type who just likes to argue. 

Then what would like me to do?  

I don't seem like the honorable type.  Interesting. 

Well, considering you sought me out and have proceeded to question me, and then tell me you don't believe me when I answer your questions, you seem like the type who just wants to argue, sir.  Can you see where that might come off that way?  

battle1

Halifax2TheMax said:

DarthMaeglin said:

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

Hmmmmmm, no.

You live in a 39,000 post fantasy world.  

Evel K

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Gern Blansten

DarthMaeglin said:

So if I express my honestly held opinion that, just like before, American democracy will survive Trump’s presidency, I’m automatically a troll?

If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.

Of course it will survive. It's just going to be stupid for four years. 

Gern Blansten

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

Evel K

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Gern Blansten

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

please let me know the next time the “responsible” gun owners muster on the town green, will ya? 

battle1

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

As it pertains to the original question, all non-trump voters will have the right to form Militias and defend their right to a free state.  

Do we hear how ridiculous this is?  Come on people.  

Evel K

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?

battle1

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?

Nothing.  Mad Max will just vilify you for owning a firearm I'm sure. 

Halifax2TheMax

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?

Do you though?

Halifax2TheMax

battle1 said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?

Nothing.  Mad Max will just vilify you for owning a firearm I'm sure. 

Mel Gibson’s on the forums? Cool.

Evel K

Halifax2TheMax said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

Gern Blansten said:

Evel K said:

brianlux said:

In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:

"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth....  Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth “considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s left, and it is by no means clear that he means war metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,” “America cannot, and will not, survive.”

So my question for our MAGA member here is this:  Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?

This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on. 

Well regulated... 

You're almost there. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view.  Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question. 

Yeah you ignore the well regulated part... 

How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?

Do you though?

No to daily carry but yes to semi-auto.