blungld said:

---

bearister said:

---

Dry run?

---

That's what I posted over a month ago and got mocked for. This is what November looks like thanks to those who voted for this monster.

---

LOL

Off thread, from an old fool scratch'n his noggin, whats the deal with lil bitty "emoticon" bippers above the typing stuff box?? regardless, enjoy your weekend "off"
Signed, no mobile / nuh-uh, never

What!!!

Matthew Patel said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is creeping fascism. Those of us who began resisting immediately

---

LOL, you haven't done any resisting. All you've done is complain, pontificate, and guess at things you think he is doing, but isn't.

---

But he will vote against him come this November,which is the single most important thing any American can do.

Bear70 said:

---

Curious if you actually believe the military will act against a very large movement made up of a large percentage of veterans and law enforcement. I have no doubt they would lick their chops to smash some left wing heads but the other way....not as certain.

Assuming the laughable, Biden winning and some sort of incursion occurs. Never mind the last month of anti-American rioting and looting, that doesn't counts only counts when white Americans take to the streets. But, let's play anyway.

---

It depends on what you mean by "military." If you mean enlisted men, I agree. If you mean officers, I disagree. I have a lot of family who is career military (mostly officers) and that is what they have told me: enlisted men support Trump but officers generally do not. I think we have seen that with Mattis and others. Do you think that the enlisted men will go against the orders of their officers regardless of their personal beliefs? I don't think so. Will the officers oppose Trump? That's the hard question but I think the answer is yes. The cracks are already showing. He has not earned their loyalty.

golden sloth said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is creeping fascism. Those of us who began resisting immediately

---

LOL, you haven't done any resisting. All you've done is complain, pontificate, and guess at things you think he is doing, but isn't.

---

But he will vote against him come this November,which is the single most important thing any American can do.

---

There's no such thing as voting against someone. There is only voting FOR someone or NOT voting.

US attorney requests DHS investigation after video shows mased, camouflaged federal authorities arresting protesters in Portland

sp4149 said:

---

NbAll this discussion about the Feds 'invasion of Portland' and nobody on either side seems to know the basic fact about jurisdiction. Not all Federal Buildings have exclusive Federal jurisdiction, many are leased buildings that do not have exclusive Federal jurisdiction. If the Federal agents are acting without jurisdiction, the Government is in line for being on the losing end of a series of lawsuits (I apologize I forgot that POTUS does not worry about losing lawsuits before he acts). A simple trip to the Assessor's office would indicate who owns the property and if it has exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction generally stops at the edge of the property, not at fence or a sign or a roadway or something that might represent to be a jurisdictional boundary. ( Second realization, the Assessor's Office may be closed to walk-up traffic (Covid-19) so reporter's may not be able to do this research.)

It is speculation by either side to comment if the jurisdiction is unknown. One would hope GSA would know since they either own or lease all the Federal buildings, but they have made plenty of mistakes in the past on issues like this.

---

There are reports and video of them operating outside of the confines of the federal buildings Given that, what would prevent Portland police from arresting and detaining these people operating without insignia and under very questionable authority? I also wonder, if Oregon were a concealed carry, Stand Your Ground state, what would keep someone from shooting unidentified people in an unmarked van that attempt to kidnap you?

BearChemist said:

---

US attorney requests DHS investigation after video shows mased, camouflaged federal authorities arresting protesters in Portland

---

How would someone know that they are federal authorities?

calbear93 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Tedhead94 said:

---

As an Oregon resident and with several friends and family that are Portland residents I find the skepticism and doubt both telling and disturbing. This is very much happening right now and is not limited to protecting the federal buildings.

---

My skepticism stems from Reuters not having reported it yet, from the BBC not having reported it yet, and from vox (who is left leaning and would usually be all over something like this) not having reported it yet. These reports may still come, but I've never been the type to rush to judgment, and prefer to have multiple reports from news organizations I trust, and not use Twitter as a reliable source of information.

---

Same here. This seem so monumentally stupid on the part of the federal government, my skepticism arises from lack of broader coverage and outrage and the small sliver of hope that we are not complete idiots.

---

Saw the interviews with the Governor of Oregon and their House Rep and they seemed to know nothing about the federal agents which they thought were from CBP or the Federal Prisons. Although they knew what happened they had received no warning that these federal agents were being deployed. The video that showed a protester holding a speaker overhead while looking at the federal agents dressed in fatigues with police on their fatigues was misleading in that it led people to believe that it was the local police they were looking at. When the protester was shot in the head it was gruesome to say the least. The other issue was the taking of protesters off the street in unmarked cars by these federal agents, which looked like a kidnapping straight out of a third world nation with a paramilitary wing. This is not something that is found in a democracy let alone the greatest democracy in the world. The Governor said that she had been asking the federal government for help in dealing with COVID and got nothing and instead got the secret deployment of federal agents with police on their fatigues.

---

What the literal f___k. I am still clinging to the small hope that this is not true and that we are not deploying shadow federal military forces to solve local protests. There has to be bigger coverage and outrage over this, right? Still not seeing it on CNN. I see article about presidential portraits but nothing about federalism.

---

The national news is full of east coast bias. If this happened in NYC it would be 24/7 on CNN

Matthew Patel said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is creeping fascism. Those of us who began resisting immediately

---

LOL, you haven't done any resisting. All you've done is complain, pontificate, and guess at things you think he is doing, but isn't.

---

You have no idea what I've done

dimitrig said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

Curious if you actually believe the military will act against a very large movement made up of a large percentage of veterans and law enforcement. I have no doubt they would lick their chops to smash some left wing heads but the other way....not as certain.

Assuming the laughable, Biden winning and some sort of incursion occurs. Never mind the last month of anti-American rioting and looting, that doesn't counts only counts when white Americans take to the streets. But, let's play anyway.

---

It depends on what you mean by "military." If you mean enlisted men, I agree. If you mean officers, I disagree. I have a lot of family who is career military (mostly officers) and that is what they have told me: enlisted men support Trump but officers generally do not. I think we have seen that with Mattis and others. Do you think that the enlisted men will go against the orders of their officers regardless of their personal beliefs? I don't think so. Will the officers oppose Trump? That's the hard question but I think the answer is yes. The cracks are already showing. He has not earned their loyalty.

---

Wars are won on the backs of grunts. I suppose when we talk about the internal fracturing of the military all bets are off right? I wouldn't necessarily say it's enlisted/officer specific. I'd bet you would have fracturing at the individual unit level.
Regardless, if he loses, Trump will walk away.
If there's shenanigans then the trouble begins. I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

Bear70 said:

---

<snip>I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

---

Which election are you watching, goat boy? Or, more appropriate, what reality are you living in? I don't see any candidates or parties that have the platform you describe. Great use of straw man argument, though. You're a good little Rightie. Keep reading that playbook!

dajo9 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is creeping fascism. Those of us who began resisting immediately

---

LOL, you haven't done any resisting. All you've done is complain, pontificate, and guess at things you think he is doing, but isn't.

---

You have no idea what I've done

---

You're mad cause you know I'm right.

AunBear89 said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

<snip>I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

---

Which election are you watching, goat boy? Or, more appropriate, what reality are you living in? I don't see any candidates or parties that have the platform you describe. Great use of straw man argument, though. You're a good little Rightie. Keep reading that playbook!

---

My girl, AB

Oh, calling me a girl is supposed to demean me? What are you, some kind of sexist pig?

So you're sexist, and 70 is in to beastiality

AunBear89 said:

---

Oh, calling me a girl is supposed to demean me? What are you, some kind of sexist pig?

So you're sexist, and 70 is in to beastiality

---

Is this the adults talking again?

LOLOLOLOLOL

AunBear89 said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

<snip>I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

---

Which election are you watching, goat boy? Or, more appropriate, what reality are you living in? I don't see any candidates or parties that have the platform you describe. Great use of straw man argument, though. You're a good little Rightie. Keep reading that playbook!

---

Are you so wound up because schools are closed still and you can't find any prey?

Insults and name calling - that's all you loser MAGAts have, huh? Can't answer an honest question, so you deflect and project. Typical Righteous Right loser.

"LOLOLOLOL"

Is that what passes for adult conversation in your fantasyland?

AunBear89 said:

---

"LOLOLOLOL"

Is that what passes for adult conversation in your fantasyland?

---

Just remember. I'm laughing at you, not with you.

AunBear89 said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

<snip>I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

---

Which election are you watching, goat boy? Or, more appropriate, what reality are you living in? I don't see any candidates or parties that have the platform you describe. Great use of straw man argument, though. You're a good little Rightie. Keep reading that playbook!

---

Must be Trump, as President he has cozied up to China, Russia, North Korea and just about every autocrat in power. He defunded the military to build his wall. He took the military construction budget to fund new wall contracts. And worse, from my old command's viewpoint, he took Navy Construction money, reimbursable money, which paid for most of the permanent positions and gave it to the Army to build the wall. (Naval Facility Engineering Command exit stage right) I guess you could say that he was only defunding the Navy in California and Arizona. And the majority of the military are not officers and really don't care about civilian law and order and would likely let Trump steal the Presidency if he lost the election. So the majority of the military would let Trump steal the Presidency, defund enforcement of laws he doesn't obey, defund the military to appease his autocrat friends in Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia...

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

Awesome, another gay joke. Must now be the new "progressive" playbook to use homosexuality as an insult and to make jokes about pedophilia. But do lecture us on the evils of name calling and being vulgar. You set a fine example.

---

Your point would have been excellent had you addressed both that were being vulgar. Seems you have something to reflect on as well.

Bear70 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

There's the real left in this country.
All your fake kindness, love, respect...it's all on display here for the BI audience.

At least I accept who I really am. Way to go homophobe.

---

You seem to think you're doing yourself favors here. You make it exceedingly difficult to find the value in your opinions. We can be flamethrowers or influencers, hard to be both.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

Awesome, another gay joke. Must now be the new "progressive" playbook to use homosexuality as an insult and to make jokes about pedophilia. But do lecture us on the evils of name calling and being vulgar. You set a fine example.

---

Your point would have been excellent had you addressed both that were being vulgar. Seems you have something to reflect on as well.

---

Maybe you would have made a fine point too if you ever bothered to call out homophobic or racist behavior from those you deem to be liberal. I wonder why there is complete silence from you and others when there are racist statements against Asians or gay insults from "liberal" posters on this site. Do you think that makes you influential when you rail against conservatives? Maybe something for you to think about. Or maybe it's more tribalism from you as well. I would love for someone else to call out these liberal posters for homophobia or jokes about molesting kids or slurs against Asians or lack of outrage against anti-semitism. But you have your favorites.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

There's the real left in this country.
All your fake kindness, love, respect...it's all on display here for the BI audience.

At least I accept who I really am. Way to go homophobe.

---

You seem to think you're doing yourself favors here. You make it exceedingly difficult to find the value in your opinions. We can be flamethrowers or influencers, hard to be both.

---

Excellent point.
I've yet to see someone in this board have their opinion change on a topic as polarizing as politics today.
I have room for a bayonet on my flamethrower.

Bear70 said:

---

I've yet to see someone in this board have their opinion change on a topic as polarizing as politics today.

---

I've seen it happen. This year even.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Hmmm....sounds likely. It's on the internet so it must be true.

---

If a reputable news organization is reporting on it and Oregon's governor and two U.S. senators are tweeting about it, it must be fake news.

---

Let me get this straight. CNN, WSJ, and NYT have no mention of this despite the fact this would be an earth shattering event for some secret, camouflaged federal military to patrol and arrest people that would otherwise be the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and city? And no identification of the "secret police" but someone who looks staged being taken into a normal looking civilian minivan does not give you pause but instead makes you think that this is real because you saw it in Twitter? And you think I am being overly skeptical? OK.

---

Well, it was first reported pretty late East Coast time and none of those papers have bureaus in Oregon. So they're just catching up this morning:

---

OK, so it's not early morning anymore, and still no mention by CNN, NYT or WSJ? Because, let's be honest, if Trump and Barr were sending military to arrest people in unmarked cars and without identifying themselves for a non federal crime, then it should be game over and no self respecting conservative who believes in state rights should tolerate this. But I am extremely suspicious that there are military uninvited by the governor arresting people and putting them in unmarked minivans.

---

Some news organizations take time to report stuff far away. The New York Times can be great, but they also can be inept -- they were so blindsided by AOC that their first story devoted to her was after she won the Democratic primary.

Also, this is a Wolf operation.

Also. Lol. Conservatives only believe in states rights when the president is a Democrat. Also, don't be surprised if the right-wing anti-government encroachment militias keep mum.

---

I don't disagree that, if what they are doing is going beyond protecting the federal building and encroaching on state rights, then conservatives should absolutely be outraged. I know I would be. And, quite frankly, they should just stay in the damn building or right outside and not intrude beyond the limited space. Cannot get rid of Trump and Barr quickly enough. If this is true, then Republicans who do not speak up should be ashamed and never again talk about a smaller federal government. Still hard to believe.

---

Setting aside, your personal feelings and convictions, you don't actually think conservatives will be outraged do you? Ask Bear70 if he would be outraged. Ask GoldenOne, BearlyAmazing or any of the other avowed conservatives on this forum if they would be outraged by the federal government engaging in broad peacekeeping missions or whatever you want to call what has been alleged to have occurred in Portland.

Bear70 has already weighed in - doesn't sound outraged at all. I think we all know that you are one of a shrinking number of principled conservatives and at this point they would all refer to you as a RINO and Never Trumper who has no home in the real Republican party.

---

If there are conservatives who are OK with this encroachment (if true), I would have the same objections that I would have with liberals who put ends before the means. We need to be principle based. Using objectionable means to achieve what one views as a positive good will only lead to acceptance of the means, deterioration of the principle, and not just a theoretical misuse of the same means for a destructive purpose. Whether it's reverse racism or violation of state rights, we have to be driven by how we do things and not let expediency be the price for our souls.

---

This is a great sentiment and it gets at an incredibly important tension we all face - what to do with information that contradicts our current understanding of the universe.

As I understand it, most of us, most of the time do not fall back on virtues or principles, but rather experience a gut reaction that we then rationalize to some satisfaction. We believe ourselves to be rational actors, be we are emotional actors first. I believe this to be hugely important because in this age of information, which is the lifeblood of democracy, what are the implications when we prove to be irrational beings by nature? When it matters most, are we able to set aside our instinct and turn to our principle to guide us?

So here's a slightly unfair question - given the importance of principle, what is your take on the Merrick Garland nomination?

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Hmmm....sounds likely. It's on the internet so it must be true.

---

If a reputable news organization is reporting on it and Oregon's governor and two U.S. senators are tweeting about it, it must be fake news.

---

Let me get this straight. CNN, WSJ, and NYT have no mention of this despite the fact this would be an earth shattering event for some secret, camouflaged federal military to patrol and arrest people that would otherwise be the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and city? And no identification of the "secret police" but someone who looks staged being taken into a normal looking civilian minivan does not give you pause but instead makes you think that this is real because you saw it in Twitter? And you think I am being overly skeptical? OK.

---

Well, it was first reported pretty late East Coast time and none of those papers have bureaus in Oregon. So they're just catching up this morning:

---

OK, so it's not early morning anymore, and still no mention by CNN, NYT or WSJ? Because, let's be honest, if Trump and Barr were sending military to arrest people in unmarked cars and without identifying themselves for a non federal crime, then it should be game over and no self respecting conservative who believes in state rights should tolerate this. But I am extremely suspicious that there are military uninvited by the governor arresting people and putting them in unmarked minivans.

---

Some news organizations take time to report stuff far away. The New York Times can be great, but they also can be inept -- they were so blindsided by AOC that their first story devoted to her was after she won the Democratic primary.

Also, this is a Wolf operation.

Also. Lol. Conservatives only believe in states rights when the president is a Democrat. Also, don't be surprised if the right-wing anti-government encroachment militias keep mum.

---

I don't disagree that, if what they are doing is going beyond protecting the federal building and encroaching on state rights, then conservatives should absolutely be outraged. I know I would be. And, quite frankly, they should just stay in the damn building or right outside and not intrude beyond the limited space. Cannot get rid of Trump and Barr quickly enough. If this is true, then Republicans who do not speak up should be ashamed and never again talk about a smaller federal government. Still hard to believe.

---

Setting aside, your personal feelings and convictions, you don't actually think conservatives will be outraged do you? Ask Bear70 if he would be outraged. Ask GoldenOne, BearlyAmazing or any of the other avowed conservatives on this forum if they would be outraged by the federal government engaging in broad peacekeeping missions or whatever you want to call what has been alleged to have occurred in Portland.

Bear70 has already weighed in - doesn't sound outraged at all. I think we all know that you are one of a shrinking number of principled conservatives and at this point they would all refer to you as a RINO and Never Trumper who has no home in the real Republican party.

---

If there are conservatives who are OK with this encroachment (if true), I would have the same objections that I would have with liberals who put ends before the means. We need to be principle based. Using objectionable means to achieve what one views as a positive good will only lead to acceptance of the means, deterioration of the principle, and not just a theoretical misuse of the same means for a destructive purpose. Whether it's reverse racism or violation of state rights, we have to be driven by how we do things and not let expediency be the price for our souls.

---

This is a great sentiment and it gets at an incredibly important tension we all face - what to do with information that contradicts our current understanding of the universe.

As I understand it, most of us, most of the time do not fall back on virtues or principles, but rather experience a gut reaction that we then rationalize to some satisfaction. We believe ourselves to be rational actors, be we are emotional actors first. I believe this to be hugely important because in this age of information, which is the lifeblood of democracy, what are the implications when we prove to be irrational beings by nature? When it matters most, are we able to set aside our instinct and turn to our principle to guide us?

So here's a slightly unfair question - given the importance of principle, what is your take on the Merrick Garland nomination?

---

I think he should have been submitted for a vote, and it was extremely disrespectful to our president at the time. I would have preferred a more conservative justice but I respect that we don't get what we want all the time but we have the ability to exercise our right to vote under the current rules of the game to have our proportionate say the next time.

calbear93 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

Awesome, another gay joke. Must now be the new "progressive" playbook to use homosexuality as an insult and to make jokes about pedophilia. But do lecture us on the evils of name calling and being vulgar. You set a fine example.

---

Your point would have been excellent had you addressed both that were being vulgar. Seems you have something to reflect on as well.

---

Maybe you would have made a fine point too if you ever bothered to call out homophobic or racist behavior from those you deem to be liberal. I wonder why there is complete silence from you and others when there are racist statements against Asians or gay insults from "liberal" posters on this site. Do you think that makes you influential when you rail against conservatives? Maybe something for you to think about. Or maybe it's more tribalism from you as well. I would love for someone else to call out these liberal posters for homophobia or jokes about molesting kids or slurs against Asians or lack of outrage against anti-semitism. But you have your favorites.

---

Its a fair point that I'm trying to be better aware of. I did it poorly, but thought that in my reply to you I was implicitly admonishing both of those decidedly vulgar posts. I thought your post was correct but would have been better taken on it's face had it addressed both. By addressing just the one I felt you lost the power of your point.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Definition of cocksure
1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds
2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY

If this term were to follow the pattern of other similes like crystal-clear, ice-cold, dirt-cheap etc., there ought to be a phrase of the form 'as sure as (a) cock'. Unfortunately there isn't and as far as we can tell there never has been. In what ways might a cock be thought of as symbolizing certainty? Some suggestions that have been put forward are, 'as sure as a cock will crow at daybreak', or in reference to the reliable way that a stop tap (stop cock) halts the flow of water. These are little more than guesses - in fact we can't be sure.


70 - you keep raising the more vulgar definition of cock, but I guess you are what you eat.

---

Awesome, another gay joke. Must now be the new "progressive" playbook to use homosexuality as an insult and to make jokes about pedophilia. But do lecture us on the evils of name calling and being vulgar. You set a fine example.

---

Your point would have been excellent had you addressed both that were being vulgar. Seems you have something to reflect on as well.

---

Maybe you would have made a fine point too if you ever bothered to call out homophobic or racist behavior from those you deem to be liberal. I wonder why there is complete silence from you and others when there are racist statements against Asians or gay insults from "liberal" posters on this site. Do you think that makes you influential when you rail against conservatives? Maybe something for you to think about. Or maybe it's more tribalism from you as well. I would love for someone else to call out these liberal posters for homophobia or jokes about molesting kids or slurs against Asians or lack of outrage against anti-semitism. But you have your favorites.

---

Its a fair point that I'm trying to be better aware of. I did it poorly, but thought that in my reply to you I was implicitly admonishing both of those decidedly vulgar posts. I thought your post was correct but would have been better taken on it's face had it addressed both. By addressing just the one I felt you lost the power of your point.

---

It's all good, brother.

Trump supporters are out in force on Twitter today justifying these new secret police tactics. Welcome to our new America.

Bear70 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Bear70 said:

---

Curious if you actually believe the military will act against a very large movement made up of a large percentage of veterans and law enforcement. I have no doubt they would lick their chops to smash some left wing heads but the other way....not as certain.

Assuming the laughable, Biden winning and some sort of incursion occurs. Never mind the last month of anti-American rioting and looting, that doesn't counts only counts when white Americans take to the streets. But, let's play anyway.

---

It depends on what you mean by "military." If you mean enlisted men, I agree. If you mean officers, I disagree. I have a lot of family who is career military (mostly officers) and that is what they have told me: enlisted men support Trump but officers generally do not. I think we have seen that with Mattis and others. Do you think that the enlisted men will go against the orders of their officers regardless of their personal beliefs? I don't think so. Will the officers oppose Trump? That's the hard question but I think the answer is yes. The cracks are already showing. He has not earned their loyalty.

---

Wars are won on the backs of grunts. I suppose when we talk about the internal fracturing of the military all bets are off right? I wouldn't necessarily say it's enlisted/officer specific. I'd bet you would have fracturing at the individual unit level.
Regardless, if he loses, Trump will walk away.
If there's shenanigans then the trouble begins. I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the military will not stand for the election to be stolen by those who want to defund law and order, defund the military, and cozy up to China.

---

From what I remember about the August coup in 91, the majority of the red army simply went home. If it got bad enough, I suspect something similar would happen here. With that said, I think the military commanders do not support trump based on trump's horrible practice of foreign policy by tweet or impulse, and if he loses the electoral vote but refuses to leave, the military commanders would move to forcibly remove him at the direction of the new president.