- 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: Massie the only republican to vote against the SAVE Act
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:26 pm to hawgfaninc
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:26 pm to hawgfaninc
He won’t vote for anything that sneaks in spending on nonsense
1
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. It does not Dishonesty is your currency, though.
How so? You don’t want the feds fixing the problem, and seem to understand an amendment can’t be passed due to liberal opposition, so the 3rd option is just accepting it.
What other choice is there? You need to explain this is more detail.
quote:
Again, your framing is dishonest. The "culture war" is a vacillating thing and not a binary win/loss scenario.
No. It’s not dishonest. This does not vacillate enough for your point to have any merit.
There is a clear difference between far left woke nonsense and normal common sense, and the direction they each take us.
The negative effects of far left woke nonsense makes that choice a clear loss.
It’s a win if common sense wins out.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only within a dishonest framing you're trying to force. In reality, it's nothing of the sort.
You are wrong. Just because you don’t like the framing doesn’t mean it’s not reality. Some idea applies to libs who think men can get pregnant and should be allowed to enter girl Athletic events. They are wrong too.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:15 pm to djsdawg
quote:
You don’t want the feds fixing the problem
I don't think it's their jurisdiction or Constitutional role, is the accurate description.
quote:
so the 3rd option is just accepting it.
Not a logical conclusion.
We have a system and there are rules to that system.
quote:
There is a clear difference between far left woke nonsense and normal common sense, and the direction they each take us.
The negative effects of far left woke nonsense makes that choice a clear loss.
It’s a win if common sense wins out.
If you can't understand the problem with this framing, I don't think I can help
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think it's their jurisdiction or Constitutional role, is the accurate description.
What isn't their jurisdiction?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:27 pm to David_DJS
Encroaching on the state domain of their elections outside of regulations imposed via the slave amendments.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think it's their jurisdiction or Constitutional role
Article One, Section Four says it clearly is.
At least for Congressional elections.
It really couldn't be more clear in the Constitution.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:34 pm to Bandit1980
He has a life. He is probably a paid shill for the Dims. Has their talking points down.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Slowselectivepro I am stunned!
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Pass it and if it's unconstitutional allow the Judicial to check it.
Not responsive to my post.
quote:
When your party is in power used the system.
So if there is no set of principles to define a "Republican", how can anyone either be a Republican or RINO? How do you distinguish between the 2 labels?
Because dimtards are actually stealing elections it is necessary to take measures to make it more difficult to steal elections.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 8:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Encroaching on the state domain of their elections outside of regulations imposed via the slave amendments.
How does that square with DOJ (under Obama) suing the state of Arizona (twice) over proof of citizenship requirements and the supreme court striking down those AZ laws, but only for federal elections. Proof of citizenship can be required for state/local elections.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 8:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you can't understand the problem with this framing, I don't think I can help
You haven’t explained what the problem is, so there is nothing to misunderstand.
The question then becomes, what exactly is the problem with this framing?
This a major detail you are leaving out.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 8:31 pm to hawgfaninc
He's not a RINO he's a democrat in sheeps clothing. He always votes with Dems and finds insane reasons to ruin Republicans
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:04 pm to BugAC
quote:
So let me ask you, is every single federal action "against states rights"?
SFP pretends to not know things when he needs to not know things.
If we had states acting in good faith, none of this would be necessary. But states are purposefully not being stewards of their voting processes. They are even allowing and enabling the violation of federal election laws.
It’s not “being in favor of states’ rights” to not challenge those blatant misuses of the electoral processes. Only dumb figs say it is.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:27 pm to hawgfaninc
He votes lock and step with democrats…. He’s not a RINO, he is a full fledged democrat
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:36 pm to First Sergeant1
quote:
He votes lock and step with democrats…. He’s not a RINO, he is a full fledged democrat
He voted for the SAVE Act.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:39 pm to David_DJS
That’s not being reported… unless I am overlooking something.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:42 pm to First Sergeant1
quote:
That’s not being reported… unless I am overlooking something.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How does this not apply to the 215 who just voted against Republican principles (states rights)?
There are no "States Rights" if other states can cheat the system. Under the constitution, no state has more power than any other and this does nothing to change that, this is 100% constitutional and the legislature is within their rights to do it.
Your argument is like saying the federal government cannot arrest illegals in "sanctuary states" because "state's rights." gtfoh man
Posted on 2/11/26 at 9:46 pm to David_DJS
Ofc people on this board never know wtf they’re talking about
Page 7 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News