OMG... it all makes sense now.

a reply to: TheRedneck

As fun as this grand conspiracy is, it's much easier for trump to call attention to such things on his twitter. He should just say he thinks she's dead. That would be typical trump the media would lose their minds and cover it publicly. Doesn't matter if she's still alive. They'd have to show her alive, which would show her condition to the American people.

Nancy doesn't wan the state of the union because trump will put the blame of american deaths by illegals on her shoulders extremely well. His last one was about NK, and look how well things are going for trump there. No missile launches in well over a year? That's almost unheard of.

Dems only got away with painting trump as the reason for the shutdown because he said he would willingly take the blame. I doubt that will be the case in the SOTU after he reopened government to negotiate.
He's likely to bring up all of the bills that republicans passed during the shutdown, to pay federal workers, which the dems all opposed in unison. The media has been carrying water for them and the SOTU will put an end to that.

The reason nancy is likely delaying and trying to keep him out of the chambers is to give the media cover for not broadcasting the SOTU. If it's "abnormal" then the media can ignore it (mostly, they'll give a little air time to it, but it won't be wall to wall coverage like normal).

That's why trump temporarily reopened the government (to pay people, put the onus on dems for the next one in three weeks, to make sure everything goes well for the largest american sporting event, the superbowl, and to give the SOTU).

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you underestimate Ginsberg and overestimate Trump.

Trump has no ability to do long-range planning. If you read his books, he's only got one method, and that's to go directly to whatever it is. No secondary planning, no machinations. What you see is what you get.

Ginsberg is not going to go anywhere. She may die in office, but she's a long way from it yet. And at this point, with a majority of Democrats in the House, confirming a conservative Supreme Court nominee may be a lot more difficult.

It is indeed illuminating when the total ignorance of some posters is presented. Could you help me out here by showing what in blue blazes a Democrat majority in the house has to do with a Supreme Court nominee?

While all these idiot leftists has been foaming at the mouth over extending an existing wall (which Trump could accomplish via EO, national emergency, or fund re-allocation) he has ensured Constitutional Primacy on the SCOTUS and our nation's various federal courts for several decades.

RBG can't have much longer left on the court and that will likely put 3 Patriotic real-American justices on the court.

I just know I am so disgusted with leftists and their fake bull-excrement I have very little interest in compromise and every interest in "you had better stay out of my way and I'll do likewise and never the two shall meet"

a reply to: TheAiIsLying

Bingo. Everything you said is very true. In that case he should nominate his sister.

a reply to: matafuchs

Don't forget Scalia. I still think he was 'put down'.

I do too. If so, whoever did it was very good, as I can find no evidence to back that up, though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Byrd

I think you underestimate Ginsberg and overestimate Trump.

Trump has no ability to do long-range planning.

It sounds to me like you are underestimating Trump. Long-range planning is essential in business.

Ginsberg is not going to go anywhere. She may die in office, but she's a long way from it yet.

Really? How do you know this? Have you seen her lately?

And at this point, with a majority of Democrats in the House, confirming a conservative Supreme Court nominee may be a lot more difficult.

I think you are confusing the House with the Senate. The House has absolutely nothing to do with the confirmation process. That's the Senate, which is 53-47 Republican.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Does anyone legally have to attend a state of the union?

Legally? No.

But it is a major event full of pomp and circumstance. Not attending raises a lot of questions, and those questions could be very uncomfortable... but not as uncomfortable as wheeling in a brain-dead corpse hooked to a life support machine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We will have gone full 1984 if they haul her braindead corpse out there with googly eyes pasted on her eyelids.

a reply to: Dfairlite

As fun as this grand conspiracy is, it's much easier for trump to call attention to such things on his twitter.

I disagree. As a tweet, Trump's statement can be easily ignored or even worse, laughed off and dismissed.

Nancy doesn't wan the state of the union because trump will put the blame of american deaths by illegals on her shoulders extremely well.

That, on the other hand, is already happening on Twitter, and has been for some time now.

The reason nancy is likely delaying and trying to keep him out of the chambers is to give the media cover for not broadcasting the SOTU. If it's "abnormal" then the media can ignore it (mostly, they'll give a little air time to it, but it won't be wall to wall coverage like normal).

That is my feeling as well. If the State of the Union address occurs in a different venue as normal, the news outlets can simply not carry it, or only carry the portions of it they think are important. If it occurs the same as previous years, they will be almost forced to cover it.

The plan is to delay, delay, delay until Trump gives up and turns the State of the Union address into little more than another tweet or press briefing.

TheRedneck

Why he is hated is because people want to live in a dictatorship government. Sad by true.

I believe the brain dead who think socialism is great, just want free stuff like Ocasio-Cortez is telling them they're entitled to and will get if they vote in Democrats. The way she's yammering (a loud and sustained or repetitive noise) you'd think she's doing so because she's going to throw her name in for the Democrat candidate to run against Trump in 2020.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's my point.

Uncomfortable questions aren't going to mater much.

They can just say she doesn't want to go.

a reply to: TheRedneck

He should declare she's dead or incapacitated and appoint a successor at the end of february if she hasn't made some public appearances in decent health.

originally posted by: eNaR

I believe the brain dead who think socialism is great, just want free stuff like Ocasio-Cortez is telling them they're entitled to and will get if they vote in Democrats. The way she's yammering (a loud and sustained or repetitive noise) you'd think she's doing so because she's going to throw her name in for the Democrat candidate to run against Trump in 2020.

She can't run in 2020 - she'll still be too young...

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Uncomfortable questions aren't going to mater much.

They can just say she doesn't want to go.

Really? Since when?

Trump said he didn't collude with Russia. That certainly wasn't the end of it.

Uncomfortable questions can lead to investigations which can lead to very uncomfortable truths.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Unfortunately we live in a country that does not apply standards equally. She is on the left and therefore above any questions. You can guarantee if she were on the right and this was obama's tenure, she would be pressured to resign by media and democrats hounding her.

a reply to: Dfairlite

And therein lies the problem. Unequal treatment.

Trump gets angry at a troublemaker disrupting his rallies, and he's inciting violence. Waters assembles a group of supporters and openly tells them to drive anyone who works for Trump out of town, and she's "responding reasonably." Trump denounces a campaign contribution from David Duke three separate times and he's a racist. Clinton never denounces her close friends William Quigg or Robert Byrd, and it's no big deal. The list of all similar episodes in the last two years would overflow the ATS database.

If one wishes to know who their true overlords are, just look for those who cannot be questioned.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump was elected because he wasn’t Hillary plain and simple. Even I hate Hillary and can understand why people voted for Trump because she wasn’t him. We act like such a majority voted for him, but most people did not. I’m sure that out of his votes 20-30% of them were plainly for the fact that he wasn’t Hillary and he wasn’t a typical politician.

Face it our last election was like the movie Brewster’s Millions. Had someone ran an ad for None if the above’ it would have won in a landslide.

Trump was "None of the Above" by not ever being a politician and having brass balls to call the asshats in DC out one by one. That has been one fine thing about him, calling out the asshats. I love it. "Takes one to know one", we used to say. He is PERFECT for the job if he does what he promised. So far he scores high on delivery no matter the tweets that make you twinge.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: LordAhriman

Funny how you all recycle memes that were originally created to explain liberal ideology. I have that same image saved in my uploads from 2 years ago. You all just changed the text.

Must suck being intellectually, morally, and creatively bankrupt.

Thanks for confirming my observation was correct about that HAD to be a liberal.

I’ve been more lurking than posting. Reading all these threads and posts about this Topic, it is like reading what NASA is going to announce upcoming in “two weeks” or so. Lots of finger nail biting and energy built up then a huge let down at the announcement. Rinse repeat and do it all over. Same with the “q thing”. Nothing happens. It’s almost insane to think something is going to change, in the big picture of things it’s just a flipping show.

a reply to: TheRedneck



That's a very good theory S&F. In addition to your observation, there is something else to gleam from this. There is one thing the democrats are missing in their "win", regardless of media polling,

the majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a big problem and the dems are seen as caring more about illegal immigrants than American citizens and certainly federal workers. That perception just got magnified exponentially these past few weeks, and it will have a political cost for them. I can only hope it will be reflected in the next election justly.