Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cool Breeze]

John,

Do you think the inertia, bureaucracy, or status quo will prevent the SCOTUS from rightly taking or ruling on the Texas et al (states) Constitutional question? It is the cleanest it could possibly get and deserves to be heard, and sent to the House for a vote on the president, as this fraud was unconscionable. What's funny there is that at the very least, we could bury the Republican party once and for all if they betrayed Trump, again.

[Guest]

Thank you, Stalin. Or are you AOC? Since you don't idenify yourself, I can only assume you are worthless.

And this is where we are in 2020.

-Guest

Oh no, I'm not Stalin. I'm not AOC. But I might be you. I'm not sure. Or maybe you're Stalin. OK, it's settled. You're Stalin and you're worthless.

Are you for real? Now I know how Number Six felt...

No, I'm Guest.

[JDav]

John,

Do you think the inertia, bureaucracy, or status quo will prevent the SCOTUS from rightly taking or ruling on the Texas et al (states) Constitutional question? It is the cleanest it could possibly get and deserves to be heard, and sent to the House for a vote on the president, as this fraud was unconscionable. What's funny there is that at the very least, we could bury the Republican party once and for all if they betrayed Trump, again.

So far, my prediction from a while back has come to pass - that there are not enough judges or other officials willing to step in, look at the overwhelming evidence of fraud, and exhibit the kind of courage it takes to do something about it. It looks like it all comes down to 5 or 6 Supreme Court justices (the 6th being Roberts - threw him in for laughs).

I could be wrong, but based on appearances the federal justice system (DOJ, FBI, etc.) is not investigating or going to investigate any of the credible claims being made. Thank God for the private citizens who are pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to find out and disseminate the truth. I just pray there are enough of them.

[John]

** 09-Dec-2020 World View: Back to the Dred Scott decision

> John, Do you think the inertia, bureaucracy, or status quo will
> prevent the SCOTUS from rightly taking or ruling on the Texas et
> al (states) Constitutional question? It is the cleanest it could
> possibly get and deserves to be heard, and sent to the House for a
> vote on the president, as this fraud was unconscionable. What's
> funny there is that at the very least, we could bury the
> Republican party once and for all if they betrayed Trump,
> again.

My opinion is pretty much the same as when I wrote about the Dred
Scott decision in September.

** 20-Sep-2020 World View: The Dred Scott Decision
** viewtopic.php?p=54672#p54672

As I wrote at the time, the Dred Scott decision was a major, lasting
shock to the Supreme Court because many people believed that they
caused the Civil War with that decision. Thus, ever since then,
they see themselves as the guardians of the Union, and will make decisions
most likely to preserve the Union. In my opinion, that reasoning was
a major factor in the way they handled the Bush v Gore case in 2000.

So I expect the Supreme Court to be acting in whatever way they feel
will resolve the election issues in a way to resolve as many controversies
as possible, and to preserve the status of the Supreme Court as a
non-partisan institution. That's why the vote on the Pennsylvania
case on Tuesday was 9-0.

There's no doubt that there was massive fraud by the Democrats in the
last election, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure it
doesn't happen again. It would also extremely disruptive to reverse
the election results. So I don't know where that leaves the Supreme
Court. I could imagine one possibility is that they would rule that
the results would be reversed in one or two states, but not enough to
reverse the election. I don't know if that would work, but I do think
that the court will try to find some similar kind of solution.

[Some Dude]

Anyway, you shouldn't let DaKardii speak for you, unless he is one of your Admins or trusted colleagues. To me he's just a pompous ass. 'Guest' sounds like a frontline soldier who's been in the trenches and I know men who've seen and participated in the horrors. They talk in the same blunt way.

Yeah. Because you absolutely have to be an admin, a trusted colleague, a frontline soldier, or whatever to understand how forums work, as well as how private property rights work.

You sound like the the owners of Face Book and Twitter. This forum was one place where I could go to read the thoughts and ideas of free men. FB and You Tube used to be like that too, until people like you decided that freedom of speech didn't operate on privately owned sites. What happens when the TV networks and newspapers, along with social media are owned by people like Dakardii? Oh, wait. That's already happened. Free speech in America is dead. America is already a sad joke.

Sarcasm aside, I was the one who created the initial fundraiser that Navigator has since taken over. In case you care.

Sounds like like Da Karadii bought you, John.

[John]

> Sounds like like Da Karadii bought you, John.

Fuck you, jackass.

[Guest]

** 09-Dec-2020 World View: Back to the Dred Scott decision

> John, Do you think the inertia, bureaucracy, or status quo will
> prevent the SCOTUS from rightly taking or ruling on the Texas et
> al (states) Constitutional question? It is the cleanest it could
> possibly get and deserves to be heard, and sent to the House for a
> vote on the president, as this fraud was unconscionable. What's
> funny there is that at the very least, we could bury the
> Republican party once and for all if they betrayed Trump,
> again.

My opinion is pretty much the same as when I wrote about the Dred
Scott decision in September.

** 20-Sep-2020 World View: The Dred Scott Decision
** viewtopic.php?p=54672#p54672

As I wrote at the time, the Dred Scott decision was a major, lasting
shock to the Supreme Court because many people believed that they
caused the Civil War with that decision. Thus, ever since then,
they see themselves as the guardians of the Union, and will make decisions
most likely to preserve the Union. In my opinion, that reasoning was
a major factor in the way they handled the Bush v Gore case in 1990.

So I expect the Supreme Court to be acting in whatever way they feel
will resolve the election issues in a way to resolve as many controversies
as possible, and to preserve the status of the Supreme Court as a
non-partisan institution. That's why the vote on the Pennsylvania
case on Tuesday was 9-0.

There's no doubt that there was massive fraud by the Democrats in the
last election, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure it
doesn't happen again. It would also extremely disruptive to reverse
the election results. So I don't know where that leaves the Supreme
Court. I could imagine one possibility is that they would rule that
the results would be reversed in one or two states, but not enough to
reverse the election. I don't know if that would work, but I do think
that the court will try to find some similar kind of solution.

The Supreme Court needs to follow the Constitution and do what is right.

Too many good people have died for the Constitution and to make America what it is.

If the Supreme Court fails, America is finished.

The states that did not follow the Constitution and had their state level supreme courts change the laws instead of the state legislators need to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Civilization does not exist without laws. The law must be followed. It doesn't matter how many leftists will become restless and violent from the decision.

If Civil War II begins because a large portion of this country doesn't want to follow the Constitution, its our destiny.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston S. Churchill

[DaKardii]

You sound like the the owners of Face Book and Twitter. This forum was one place where I could go to read the thoughts and ideas of free men. FB and You Tube used to be like that too, until people like you decided that freedom of speech didn't operate on privately owned sites. What happens when the TV networks and newspapers, along with social media are owned by people like Dakardii? Oh, wait. That's already happened. Free speech in America is dead. America is already a sad joke.

If you seriously think what I advocated on here today is censorship, then you clearly have no idea what censorship actually is.

Sounds like like Da Karadii bought you, John.

I "bought" him because I started a fundraiser for him? What a truly vile response. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that.

And by the way, notice that John replied to you when he could've easily just deleted that comment. He decided not to censor it despite the fact that it inadvertently makes a very strong argument IN FAVOR of censorship. And you say that this site "was" a place where you could go to read the thoughts and ideas of free men. As if it was in the past but isn't anymore. Give me a break.

[DaKardii]

As I wrote at the time, the Dred Scott decision was a major, lasting
shock to the Supreme Court because many people believed that they
caused the Civil War with that decision. Thus, ever since then,
they see themselves as the guardians of the Union, and will make decisions
most likely to preserve the Union. In my opinion, that reasoning was
a major factor in the way they handled the Bush v Gore case in 2000.

So I expect the Supreme Court to be acting in whatever way they feel
will resolve the election issues in a way to resolve as many controversies
as possible, and to preserve the status of the Supreme Court as a
non-partisan institution. That's why the vote on the Pennsylvania
case on Tuesday was 9-0.

There's no doubt that there was massive fraud by the Democrats in the
last election, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure it
doesn't happen again. It would also extremely disruptive to reverse
the election results. So I don't know where that leaves the Supreme
Court. I could imagine one possibility is that they would rule that
the results would be reversed in one or two states, but not enough to
reverse the election. I don't know if that would work, but I do think
that the court will try to find some similar kind of solution.

John, do you think secession is a real possibility at this time?

[Guest]

** 09-Dec-2020 World View: Back to the Dred Scott decision

> John, Do you think the inertia, bureaucracy, or status quo will
> prevent the SCOTUS from rightly taking or ruling on the Texas et
> al (states) Constitutional question? It is the cleanest it could
> possibly get and deserves to be heard, and sent to the House for a
> vote on the president, as this fraud was unconscionable. What's
> funny there is that at the very least, we could bury the
> Republican party once and for all if they betrayed Trump,
> again.

My opinion is pretty much the same as when I wrote about the Dred
Scott decision in September.

** 20-Sep-2020 World View: The Dred Scott Decision
** viewtopic.php?p=54672#p54672

As I wrote at the time, the Dred Scott decision was a major, lasting
shock to the Supreme Court because many people believed that they
caused the Civil War with that decision. Thus, ever since then,
they see themselves as the guardians of the Union, and will make decisions
most likely to preserve the Union. In my opinion, that reasoning was
a major factor in the way they handled the Bush v Gore case in 1990.

So I expect the Supreme Court to be acting in whatever way they feel
will resolve the election issues in a way to resolve as many controversies
as possible, and to preserve the status of the Supreme Court as a
non-partisan institution. That's why the vote on the Pennsylvania
case on Tuesday was 9-0.

There's no doubt that there was massive fraud by the Democrats in the
last election, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure it
doesn't happen again. It would also extremely disruptive to reverse
the election results. So I don't know where that leaves the Supreme
Court. I could imagine one possibility is that they would rule that
the results would be reversed in one or two states, but not enough to
reverse the election. I don't know if that would work, but I do think
that the court will try to find some similar kind of solution.

The Supreme Court needs to follow the Constitution and do what is right.

Too many good people have died for the Constitution and to make America what it is.

If the Supreme Court fails, America is finished.

The states that did not follow the Constitution and had their state level supreme courts change the laws instead of the state legislators need to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Civilization does not exist without laws. The law must be followed. It doesn't matter how many leftists will become restless and violent from the decision.

If Civil War II begins because a large portion of this country doesn't want to follow the Constitution, its our destiny.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston S. Churchill

Good post.

This is the most clear and concise argument I have seen on this issue. I wish one of the talking heads would say this on live TV before it could be edited out. I have almost given up on America. Almost. If Trump is cheated out of victory, then America will implode and be destroyed by foreign enemies. I only feel badly for the true Americans who wll pay the price for the liberal elite who will jet off to Switzerland or New Zealand and escape.