Ben Sasse

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if that’s true, why implement tax changes like doubling the standard deduction and increase child tax credits? he doesn’t utilize those things. why increase funding for black colleges? is he black? why advocate for school choice? do his grandkids attend crappy public schools?

he’s a terrible person. he’s not quite what you’re portraying him to be.

Two things. think about the little kid who had a lawn cutting business, he asked to cut the white house lawn, trump brought him in and walked with him as he cut the lawn. that was my favorite moment of his presidency, and not something that Darth Vader would have done.

Second, watch the video of him walking to his plane at night, when reporters told him that Ginsberg died. his reaction wasn’t what you d expect if he was as one dimensional as you’re suggesting he is.

he’s also done real generous charitable things. why would
someone who only cares about himself donate his private jet to fly a sick little boy across the country, who needed so much medical equipment that commercial flights couldn’t accommodate him?

he is a horribly flawed person who has implemented some popular policies which have helped huge numbers of americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

you’re exactly right, i can agree he’s a horrible person, they can’t concede he’s done some
good things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device