Yeah. A lot of that is probably plastic. It's hard for a woman in her 50's to look like that without some cosmetic surgeries. But, yeah, she's hotter than Tulsi. And she seems to have shed her chamber-o-commerce sort of conservatism. Maybe it's because she knows where the money is since she's gone independent. She's no Tim Pool, but she still knows that looks alone won't pay the bills. Too old, even with plastic, to be successful as a Thot.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Trump 2024 ???
- Thread starter bwframe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Yeah. A lot of that is probably plastic. It's hard for a woman in her 50's to look like that without some cosmetic surgeries. But, yeah, she's hotter than Tulsi. And she seems to have shed her chamber-o-commerce sort of conservatism. Maybe it's because she knows where the money is since she's gone independent. She's no Tim Pool, but she still knows that looks alone won't pay the bills. Too old, even with plastic, to be successful as a Thot.
A "pansy nose holder" is a person who thinks that none of the candidates are ideal, but is willing to overlook the faults of the least worst candidate because of a belief that the consequences of allowing the worst candidate to win are dire. The "pansy" part comes from people who think everyone has to think like them or they're the enemy. So it's really just "nose-holders".
Trump. While holding my nose. We cannot have another term of Biden. Or any Democrat in the White house. But I won't hold my nose for a chamber-o-commerce neocon, because it'll have the same effect as voting for a Democrat. It's just a slower death.
When it all goes down, and it will, I willing not be blaming the left for winning I will know exactly who defeated the best chance conservatives have had in decades to reverse the direction of this country…
It's an inevitability. If the candidate you think is most ideal can't win the nomination of one of the two main parties, then you will have to choose between two less than ideal candidates. It's just a fact of a two party system. There are many pigeon holes into which candidates can fit, but only two of them can hold candidates that can win.
So if a candidate you feel good about doesn't get into one of those two pigeon holes, then you have to hold your nose for the one who comes least furthest away from your ideal. Unfortunate, but true about our system.
Last edited:
Then convince them through reason. Contempt won't help you. Reason may not either. People are free to have their own priorities. They don't have to have yours. I've known GFGT long enough on INGO and have met him IRL. I do not doubt his convictions about abortion, and though I agree with him in principle, I don't have the same priority. I have no reason to doubt oze on it either.
I can hold my nose and vote for Trump. But having the conviction to have to hold my nose to do it does not make me a panzy for doing it. Sometimes going against principle upholds the principle better than holding steadfast to it. In other words, pragmatism often serves principles better than holding strictly to the principle.
I've said many times I vote for outcomes, not for people. Pulling the Trump lever will uphold pro-life principles better than pulling the libertarian lever, where at most that candidate will get 5% of the vote. A vote for Trump is practical vote against a Democrat who will gladly, eagerly, do more harm to pro-life principles than Trump will.
You're not gonna win without the nose holders. Stop attacking them and make the case why they should hold their noses.
Last edited:
“Start”
Let me guess- only the rinos favor an abortion ban and the real conservatives are open to abortion? Chamber of Commerce fellas are too leftist.
The argument about Trump on guns is only that he's not as strong on the 2A as so many Trumpers want to believe. But, in terms of comparing to someone like Biden, or really any Democrat, it's not comparable. Least evil means what it means.
I've been told on INGO in past elections that least evil guarantees that you'll get evil. The rebuttal to that is, but we live in the real world, not the ideal one. You're gonna get evil no matter who you vote for. So it's better to choose between the evils who can actually win, and voting against the most evil. I'm not voting FOR Trump. I'm under no delusion that he's any kind of savior. But it's a better outcome than any Democrat who is likely to be president.
Last edited:
Few thoughts.
Trump has done more to curb abortion by appointing those that overturned Roe.
Trump is suddenly s going to reverse course on abortion now?
Abortion issue likely cost republicans the red wave in 2022 that many expected.
Trump often says what his adversaries want to hear,
He has a record, what is it? That should be what this is judged by, not BS.
Trump has done more to curb abortion by appointing those that overturned Roe.
Trump is suddenly s going to reverse course on abortion now?
Abortion issue likely cost republicans the red wave in 2022 that many expected.
Trump often says what his adversaries want to hear,
He has a record, what is it? That should be what this is judged by, not BS.
Okay. I get that. But realistically, how many dead babies under a Trump administration vs a Biden administration? If either way you get dead babies, is there a least evil choice? One party is weak on dead babies. One party loves dead babies. They're not shy about saying that. If voting for a third party helps the loves-dead-babies party win, was your principles best served?
True.
I think what it would mean is that Trump would not pursue banning abortion at a federal level. For those who want a total ban everywhere, overturning RvW was just a first step. Trump would likely not take the next steps, which I think is the right policy. RvW was a law passed by judges. It was never legitimate. And I think that it's a states rights issue. Feds should stay out of it. But that's my opinion.
True.
I think the normal term for that is "pandering". Which is horrible when an opponent of Trump does it. But is 3D genius level chess when Trump does it.
It's fair to judge whether his words comes from his heart or are just for the purpose of pandering. Everyone gets to make that judgement for themselves. But his record once written identifies which. For example, on guns, he's often pandering given his record. He gave the ATF the precedent to redefine words.
Trump doesn’t care about dead babies. He said he’d support justices to get rid of dead babies so “conservatives” would vote for him in 2016. He thinks if he comes from the left on dead babies now, just a little bit, he believes there is a bunch of just-a-few-dead-babies-are-ok voters out there that will vote for him now…and give him a pass on Roe. I don’t think there are many, if any of those kinds of voters out there. We’ll see if the Trump idolaters will be enough to secure his nomination. We’ll see how many “pro-lifers” that are currently supporting Trump will realize, if given the chance, Trump will likely do to abortion that he did for 2A—capitulate and compromise.
But even with where Trump's heart actually is, we got a better outcome on both. Like I said, what it means is likely Trump won't pursue a federal ban. Personally I think federalism is the right policy. There are only certain circumstances in which murder is a federal crime, for example. Crossing state lines; murdering a federal officer or agent, elected or appointed official; occurring on federal property are some of those circumstances. Other than that, murder is left to the states to deal with. Abortion belongs as a state issue as well.
I think Trump would not pursue making abortion illegal nationwide. On the other side, if a bill were passed by a democratic congress essentially encoding RvW as a law, however, would Trump sign it? Maybe. How likely is it under Trump than under any Democrat? It's unknown who Trump would pander to. It's absolutely certain that every loves-killing-babies Democrat would unquestionably sign that bill.
We have the same questions about guns with Trump. Would he sign an AWB if congress passed one? I honestly don't know. Trumpers are absolutely sure he would not betray them. I think his loyalty to them is only to the extent that their loyalty serves him. As a POTUS who is not eligible to be re-elected after a 2nd term, when he no longer needs their loyalty, maybe he will betray them or maybe not. At least it's an unknown. Any Democrat would eagerly sign an AWB.
A self-described Never Trumper who once argued that Donald Trump should be kept off the ballot for the 2024 presidential election because of the insurrection clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has now changed his mind and has concluded that due to a technicality the amendment doesn't apply to Trump because as POTUS he is not technically an "officer of the United States." but rather one who appoints/commissions officers.
reason.com
Donald Trump Should be on the Ballot and Should Lose
Trump is loathsome, but ... the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Clause does not apply to Trump.
reason.com
Last edited:
A 5 week ban is terrible but a 15 week ban makes everyone happy, according to Trump. He does not care about abortion. He does not care about federalism. He cares about getting his old job back. Apparently, he thinks he can “split the baby” and make enough people like him to get his old job back.
Where would they try to find the authority, the Commerce Clause?
I mean. I don't get why Trump should be considered loathsome. I think Trump is a grifter as most politicians are. He is not uniquely loathsome. If we're gonna loath grifter politicians we should loath all of them. Maybe some a little more than others, but still at least a little. It's truly TDS to say Trump is uniquely loathsome when there are so many more politicians that deserve our loathing. Biden chief among them.A self-described Never Trumper who once argued that Donald Trump should be kept off the ballot for the 2024 presidential election because of the insurrection clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has now changed his mind and has concluded that due to a technicality the amendment doesn't apply to Trump because he is not technically an "officer of the United States."
Donald Trump Should be on the Ballot and Should Lose
Trump is loathsome, but ... the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Clause does not apply to Trump.
Side Note: I don't give a **** what you say, Trump IS a politician at this point. You could get away with claiming he wasn't when he first threw his hat into the ring in 2016. I think even that is arguable. But he is objectively, absolutely, everything a politician is today.
Get an activist majority 6-3 Catholic SCOTUS to go along with it. Wouldn't be the first time an activist court went along with an unconstitutional law. The commerce clause is the activist Republican's equal protection clause.
- Status
Site Supporter
Members online
- indyblue
- AlienRayGun
- MDpolo
- Middlefart
- Nazgul
- Creedmoor
- SEIndSAM
- 223 Gunner
- Rafterman
- morve80
- DoggyDaddy
- EODFXSTI
- billyramair
- lance
- tca1352
- 10mm
- sadclownwp
- wesleyoliver95
- jbm1521
- snapping turtle
- michael711
- 1775usmarine
- vitamink
- wesnellans
- keeph8n
- radar8756
- bigz82
- FNparabellum
- Okimeister
- 9teen56f100
- blueskies
- ancjr
- VostocK
- Steve
- Demoderb1989
- Brandon