AlphaMikeFoxtrot

If she had her way the Somalian death squads would go door to door confiscating guns! She is the ANTI CHRIST!

She's consolidating power among the Antifa supersoldier factions as we speak! Also, did you tag her thinking she will get a prompt/notification? This isn't Twitter.

Re: Barack, I certainly didn't approve, but it's less offensive than using the bible as a political prop a la you know who. I didn't say religious folk shouldn't serve, they just shouldn't use their religion as justification for anything that applies to people outside of their faith. What happens when a *gasp* Muslim gets a seat? Separation of church and state exists for a reason.

You seem to think I'm some card carrying "defend the Dems at all cost" chump. Not everyone needs the comfort of groupthink to reach self-actualization. There's no better way to pigeonhole yourself than blind adherence to a political party, religion, etc. Heck, I'm often forced to distance myself from fellow Sioux fans in hockey circles. Biden is just pandering to the stupid rust belt religious folk who make or break his campaign (thanks to the electoral college), much like his opponent has done. Does this attempted association mean he is one of the pedophiles QAnon is rallying against? Ill hang up and listen... Barrett's Kingdom of God soundbit sure sounds like she drinks the koolaid of the anthrocentric belief that spirituality boils down to a deity that decided to model humans and humans alone in his own image. Even as a kid that seemed unlikely and simple-minded to me. But hey, she's a female! The original rogue politician, Jesse Ventura, said it best: organized religion is a crutch for the weak minded.

The status she holds is largely undeserved. Her refusal to hire black law clerks and comments on Kaepernick show she was only concerned with minority groups to which she belonged. Said racism makes likening her to Biggie Smalls of all people a headscratcher. She also could have retired a long time ago, but was too concerned with setting a record for longest serving judge. Now there's a good chance a generation of women are subjected to the will of an organized religion that wants to impose its beliefs on non-members while ignoring the long lasting societal and individual harm done by the pedophiles in its organization. Whoops. Come to think of it, why don't QAnon freakshows go after the Catholic church? #SaveTheChildren

That's not elaborating, that's restating with more words. Who specifically of the justices would have problems if their past was scrutinized? EDIT: forgot to end the first sentence with LOL!!1!

LOL! Elaborate on your first sentence in the second paragraph. It's not us vs. them to me, when Dems are back in power I'll shift my skepticism to that party.

Let's not pretend like he doesn't have skeletons in the closet. There but for the grace of <deity> goes many of us, but we aren't facing the scrutiny he did.

Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be.

I'd be just as disappointed in dems for doing the same thing. And they likely will play dirty the next time they can using McConnell as an excuse. It'll be hard to argue against it.

Again, don't cry if Democrats work the system the same way when the pendulum swings the other way. Anyone whose rationale is to own the libs, as you admitted, has no qualms with the unnecessary and dangerous polarization tearing our county apart. Also, someone who is proud of his "baller" MAGA hat insulted me on the internet? Not sure my fragile psyche can handle that!

Certainly a distraction from discussing other topics.

For the last few years, whenever Trump talks about forest management being a problem, it frustrates me to no end when liberals say that what is saying is wrong. While Trump doesn't understand forestry, he is correct (at least on a macro level) that we need to change our approach. Decades of fire suppression have made forest fires bigger. Liberals end up forcing me to defend what Trump says, and it pain me to have to do so. Now, you are forcing me to do so with feminists. Attacking a woman for who she sleeps with is a ridiculous double standard men are not subjected to. Who are you to say whether or not Kamala had true feelings for these men? Would you congratulate a man for sleeping with a powerful woman, or marrying the daughter of a business owner and getting a cushy job? Feminists are wrong about a lot, and many of them articulate it incorrectly, but it is absolutely true that your attacks on her are a mysoginistic double standard. She is a lousy person in my eyes. Yet another hypocritical politician: says she smoked pot to seem relatable, but also locked people up for doing so. But who she has dated doesn't matter to me. For you to focus on that is your problem; saying that it "eats at me" is so incredibly obvious as a projection on your part. Women reject you, and this is how it manifests.

Won't miss her one bit whenever we are finally rid of her.

I don't hold Obama in particularly high regard. Voted McCain (but not religious weirdo Romney).

To focus on their own campaigns. Collins having to vote pretty much seals her fate.

Sorry for not prefacing with a trigger warning. Sheesh. Just because you have to pay for sex doesn't mean everyone else sees it as transactional. Do you feel the same way about Guilfoyle?

Your parents failed miserably, as evidenced by your lengthy mysoginistic rant about Kamala. You even doubled down, saying that it was a fact that she is a "slut riding whore", which suggests you don't actually have any experience with sex beyond watching porn.

Not waiting suggests a lack of faith in the majority and presidency remaining as is. I don't think they have the votes, but we will see. Either way, don't cry when the tables are turned, MAGA boy.

More of the <insert short sighted decision here> to own the libs.

Attacking the wording means you can't refute the message.

Only those you disagree with do that, duh.

We shall see if they have the votes.

It's funny seeing all the half-baked justifications for why it's different this time, but at least you're willing to admit yours is for hyper-partisan reasons.

Lots of people will hold their nose and vote based on their feelings about abortion. My state is solid blue so I'm voting 3rd party, but now it's anybody's guess who will win. My opinion is it helps Biden more since there are so many far left folks that weren't going to vote for him out of loyalty to Sanders, and this happened with enough time for them to do so now.