- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Grassley says he won’t support the Save Act
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Can you give a cite for this?
I think there are two. Both involving Arizona. The latest is this one -
Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship
ETA - this is how the "federal only voter" was born.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 11:15 am
0
Posted on 1/21/26 at 11:28 am to hawgfaninc
92 years old and we wonder what the hell is wrong with American politics. This selfish RINO bastard has been at the public tit longer than most Americans have been alive. What a disgrace, why aren’t we demanding he resign?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 12:06 pm to VoxDawg
Grassley’s tweet reads like a 13 year old girl wrote it.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:19 pm to High C
quote:
Grassley’s tweet reads like a 13 year old girl wrote it.
Kill that messenger...
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Spotting out the hypocrisy and destruction of language is really easy for me, actually.
Our interactions have nothing to do with this.
quote:
Emotional argument that ignores principle to combat Republican values (states rights). Literally the leftist playbook
You completely avoided the point being made.
quote:
emotional-based arguments that ignore logic, facts, and history.
Securing federal elections from liberal fraud isnt illogical. What an absurd claim.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:09 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
But you lend your intelligence to support stupid ideas.
You absolutely KNOW the elections have been subject to massive fraud for the past half century at least. Yet you smugly hide behind your facade of "no evidence" == which only means that those doing the 'stealing' are not interested in 'finding evidence.
Of course he deflected from this point. The stupid idea is allowing crooked states to allow fraud in federal elections.
The consequences to liberal cheating are obvious, yet he doesnt care because of an irrational commitment to "muh integrity" over the future of our nation.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:35 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
ChineseBandit58
I don't know why you're engaging with him (SFP). Or why anyone does. You ripped him a new butthole earlier and he ignored about 80% of that asswhooping. He's simply a disruptor, nothing more, he couldn't care less if he's right or wrong on any issue.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 6:58 pm to TheOtherWhiteMeat
quote:
I don't know why you're engaging with him (SFP). Or why anyone does. You ripped him a new butthole earlier and he ignored about 80% of that asswhooping. He's simply a disruptor, nothing more, he couldn't care less if he's right or wrong on any issue.
Yep. His "ignore the obvious threat because its emotional to acknowledge it" is extremely nonsensical.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:03 pm to TheOtherWhiteMeat
quote:
You ripped him a new butthole earlier
Wtf
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:04 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Yep. His "ignore the obvious threat because its emotional to acknowledge it" is extremely nonsensical.
Only if you reject rationality and principles for emotional thinking that leads you anywhere your feelings say to.
I'll stick with rationality, logic, and principles
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:06 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Of course he deflected from this point.
It's nonsensical and steers the conversation into clown world.
He already showed he's arguing his own purported stance. He has to rectify this first before a anything thereafter has value to address. He can't and won't.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if you reject rationality and principles for emotional thinking that leads you anywhere your feelings say to.
Its ILLIGOGICAL and IRRATIONAL to ignore an obvious threat.
Its PRINCIPLED to fight against an obvious threat.
Its DUMB to cut off your nose to spite your face because "muh principles".
Trying to downplay that as "emotional thinking" is nonsensical.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:27 pm to djsdawg
Here is your THIRD chance.
quote:
what, exactly is the selling point (try selling it without referencing the threat of DEMs/leftists and focus on the policies themselves).
Posted on 1/21/26 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what, exactly is the selling point (try selling it without referencing the threat of DEMs/leftists and focus on the policies themselves).
The obvious selling point is establishing more secure and fair standards for federal elections.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He already showed he's arguing his own purported stance. He has to rectify this first before a anything thereafter has value to address. He can't and won't.
He was very clear about what he prioritizes, and he doesnt need to rectify anything else for his points to be validated.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:29 pm to djsdawg
quote:
He was very clear about what he prioritizes,
He was not, as his priorities were in direct conflict. He said he supports states rights and then took a position specifically antithetical to states rights.
As I said, he's arguing against himself, and he has to rectify this rhetorical conflict.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 8:31 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The obvious selling point is establishing more secure and fair standards for federal elections.
So you believe it is wise to permit the next Democratic government to make it illegal for any state to require ID and enact universal mail in voting, and no state may protest?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So you believe it is wise to permit the next Democratic government to make it illegal for any state to require ID and enact universal mail in voting, and no state may protest?
What is the selling point for this?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He was not, as his priorities were in direct conflict. He said he supports states rights and then took a position specifically antithetical to states rights.
One superseded the other.
The fate of our nation matters more than "muh principles".
This is why its irrational to ignore legitimate threats. You refuse to acknowledge the threats because "muh emotions".
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:05 pm to hawgfaninc
Glad it is on record that he is in favor of voter fraud.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News