Quoted from Russian state TV

https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:52:30 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> Quoted from Russian state TV
>
> https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
>
> --
> “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> liberal personality.” — Altie
https://tenor.com/view/sleepy-joe-gif-18788645

How interesting

But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:14:58 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

Dude has had lots of careers — real estate developer, hospitality, tv star, golf course manager, university founder, us president, etc. — but the one common denominator is selling shit with his name on it.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:52:30 PM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:
> Quoted from Russian state TV
>
> https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww

One of the reasons I had to have one of my LGBTQ friends explain to me why the second set of gas station stickers showing up is offensive.

It shows Putin shirtless on a horse, with a shirtless representation of Trump behind him!

Mike

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> But first, we have to send in our contributions to the RNC to elect "Trump Republican Majorities" in Congress. Seriously, that's what the RNC's latest begging letter calls them. What's next - officially renaming the party the Trump Republican Party?

Basically. The purge of non-loyalists to Trump is already beginning.

I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020 election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress, succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember, the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected member of the House!), and daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election. Simple majority would be required, you're not impeaching someone you never believed President.

(This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2 Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks Roberts is reliable.)

Mike

> I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020 election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress, succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember, the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected member of the House!), and daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election. Simple majority would be required, you're not impeaching someone you never believed President.
>
> (This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2 Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks Roberts is reliable.)

To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just two small problems."
First, that Congressional resolution still has to be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both, needed to override the veto.
Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.

If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that would probably spark a second Civil War, which lasts just long enough for everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves with petty details.

The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I fully see an effort, should they gain both houses, to nullify the 2020
>> election by rescinding consent by binding resolution in Congress,
>> succeeding the Speaker of the House to the Presidency (and, remember,
>> the Speaker does NOT have to be an elected member of the House!), and
>> daring a majority of the Supreme Court to stop them. The (non-Q
>> non-"Harris is not eligible") grounds would be the unconstitutional
>> nature, as decided by states like Pennsylvania, of the 2020 election.
>> Simple majority would be required, you're not impeaching someone you
>> never believed President.
>>
>> (This is why I think the GQP allowing the nomination of the new Justice
>> to proceed and be confirmed a colossal mistake. They would've had a 6-2
>> Court in that kind of a situation -- now it's 6-3 and no GQPer thinks
>> Roberts is reliable.)
>
> To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just
> two small problems."
> First, that Congressional resolution still has to
> be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have
> either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both,
> needed to override the veto.
> Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.
>
> If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of
> the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some
> joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that
> would probably spark a second Civil War, which lasts just long enough for
> everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves
> with petty details.
>

Don’t forget who you’re replying to here.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> Quoted from Russian state TV
>
> https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
>
> --
> “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> liberal personality.” — Altie

Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."

It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.

Doug

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > Quoted from Russian state TV
> >
> > https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
> >
> > --
> > “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> > liberal personality.” — Altie
> Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."
>
> It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
>
> Doug

I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > > Quoted from Russian state TV
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
> > >
> > > --
> > > “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> > > liberal personality.” — Altie
> > Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."
> >
> > It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
> >
> > Doug
> I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.

Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:05:19 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> To paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, "An excellent idea, sir, with just two small problems."
> First, that Congressional resolution still has to be signed by Biden, and when he vetoes it, the Republicans won't have either the 290 Representatives nor the 67 Senators, much less both, needed to override the veto.

This is why you get the Supreme Court involved.

> Second, not even Clarence Thomas is mad enough to support something like that.

If I only had that faith.
> If somebody wants Trump as President that badly, you make him Speaker of the House like you suggested, then wait for Biden and Harris to make some joint appearance somewhere - Bang, Bang, President Trump. Of course, that would probably spark a second Civil War, which lasts just long enough for everybody with money to leave the country, but let's not bother ourselves with petty details.

Let's put it this way -- that's probably Plan B at this point. I don't think a lot of the Q types in this country think we have three more years, even with both houses of Congress come next January.

Mike

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > > > Quoted from Russian state TV
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s=21&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> > > > liberal personality.” — Altie
> > > Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit, those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine. We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."
> > >
> > > It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > I bet a lot of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” people also thought that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.
> Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.

I didn’t disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of people that believed that there were Russian activities worth investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and fully capable of losing the election on her own (especially considering our election system).

Johnny RSFCootball <1jay1miller1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
>>>>> Quoted from Russian state TV
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s!&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
>>>>> liberal personality.  Altie
>>>> Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You
>>>> think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit,
>>>> those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine.
>>>> We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."
>>>>
>>>> It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost
>>>> because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the
>>>> real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
>>>>
>>>> Doug
>>> I bet a lot of the Russia! Russia! Russia! people also thought that
>>> Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt
>>> that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those
>>> activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.
>> Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She
>> had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite
>> capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.
>
> I didnt disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of
> people that believed that there were Russian activities worth
> investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and
> fully capable of losing the election on her own (especially considering
> our election system).

Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.

Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:32:33 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:

> Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
> 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
> Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
> campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.
>
> Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
> those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
> his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
> not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

Trump was tougher on Russia than both Obama and Biden.

After taking office, Biden immediately began enriching Russia and their allies
while weakening the US.

-TE

"Shit is so fake that the minute an outsider took office we got cheap gas, cheap
food, became energy independent, no wars and focused on our country’s own
issues. Establishment hacks get back in and we have inflation, medical tyranny,
world war 3, need to take a mortgage for gas."

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:40:36 PM UTC-5, TE wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:32:33 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
>
> > Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
> > 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
> > Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
> > campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more..
> >
> > Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
> > those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
> > his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
> > not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
> Trump was tougher on Russia than both Obama and Biden.
>
> After taking office, Biden immediately began enriching Russia and their allies
> while weakening the US.
>
> -TE
>
> "Shit is so fake that the minute an outsider took office we got cheap gas, cheap
> food, became energy independent, no wars and focused on our country’s own
> issues. Establishment hacks get back in and we have inflation, medical tyranny,
> world war 3, need to take a mortgage for gas."

You're a full-blown QAnon Trumper now? Yikes.

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> Johnny RSFCootball <1jay1mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:25:28 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> >>>>> Quoted from Russian state TV
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1508943310483767302?s!&t=uh_VFGjFztLQlrEYkwBmww
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
> >>>>> liberal personality. Altie
> >>>> Does it tell you something that they said this in a public forum? You
> >>>> think maybe this show is part of their propaganda campaign? "Dammit,
> >>>> those amerikaniski are actually being effective in supporting Ukraine.
> >>>> We must do more to sew division in their weak, democratic system."
> >>>>
> >>>> It's amazing how many people really want to believe that Clinton lost
> >>>> because of Russia's activities. I guess they can't accept that the
> >>>> real reason was that she's a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doug
> >>> I bet a lot of the Russia! Russia! Russia! people also thought that
> >>> Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. Also I bet not everyone who felt
> >>> that there were Russian activities worth investigating, felt those
> >>> activities actually swung the election or directly involved trump himself.
> >> Hillary had a 40 point lead on Obama in '08 and lost the nomination. She
> >> had a 40 point lead on Bernie and almost lost it in '16. She was quite
> >> capable of losing the election to Trump on her own.
> >
> > I didn t disagree with that. My point was that I think there are lots of
> > people that believed that there were Russian activities worth
> > investigating and also believed that Clinton wasnt a great candidate and
> > fully capable of losing the election on her own (especially considering
> > our election system).
> Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
> 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
> Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
> campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.
>
> Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
> those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
> his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
> not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
> --

You mean like the special prosecutor?

Doug

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 4:32:33 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:

> Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
> 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
> Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
> campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more.
>
> Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
> those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
> his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
> not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.
> --

ok, I can agree with this.

As for Trump's Presidency, I think it fell apart when he blew a gasket at the report of the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:55:08 PM UTC-4, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 4:32:33 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:
>
> > Exactly. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny what was clear back in
> > 2016 to anyone who didn’t have motive to not know or deny it: Trump is
> > Putin’s man and Russia did help Trump’s campaign, with collusion from that
> > campaign. They aren’t even bothering to try to hide it any more..
> >
> > Whether or not that was a decisive factor in his win is irrelevant to what
> > those facts mean for Trump’s suitability for office, or the light in which
> > his actions in office should be viewed, or the gullibility, intentional or
> > not, of those who still can’t or refuse to see it.

> ok, I can agree with this.
>
> As for Trump's Presidency, I think it fell apart when he blew a gasket at the report of the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

Amen. Peace and prosperity are over-rated. Things are now back
to normal.

-TE

Those currently in power insist on masking, but don’t wear masks. They claim the seas are rising and
build mansions on the shore. They abhor the expenditure of fossil fuels and fly exclusively in private
jets. And all the while half of the country will not name the disease. Why?
Because the cost of challenging this oppressive orthodoxy has, for them, become too high. Upon
a possible awakening, they—or more likely their children—might say that the country was occupied.
And they would be right.
-David Mamet