Fair point. In reality if Texas has standing to sue, then they all do, but if Texas does not, none of them do. It's an interesting case, but my guess is that the court won't hear it for some pretty sound legal reasons.
Utah is in.
- Thread starter TheGerman
- Start date
Why can both not be done? I’m tired of this narrative that we have to just allow the bullshit blatant election fraud “because we need to focus on the GA senate seats!” Who said we’re not focusing on that too? I’m out every single day for hours and hours canvassing for the Purdue/Loeffler campaigns.
But more importantly, if we don’t fix the goddang blatant election fraud by the libtards, WTF would make you think there’s a shot in hell of the Republican senators winning? They already cheated a pedo dementia patient into the office of president IN GEORGIA! You actually believe GA went for Biden?
If they can cheat GA into going for Biden, they damn sure can do the exact same with Ossoff/Warnock. And if we don’t address this shit and fix it, they WILL!
You're a fucking putz.
What have you done to advance victory in Georgia, since you seem to like to focus there?
Like @Forgetful Coyote and I have schooled you on before, there is nothing mutually exclusive about putting an all out effort into winning Georgia AND into reversing an electoral travesty.
And I'll take your evasion of my question about your legal expertise as an affirmative answer.
Are we assuming air support, or no? Because it matters whether we're talking time frames of a small number of weeks, or a small number of months.
It's also important to consider where Dayton lies as a a priority if said action was taking place simultaneously in a couple dozen other cities.
It’s almost 1600. Weren’t we supposed to hear something by 1500 today?
For your reading pleasure
I know... the USSC requested replies from the states referenced in Texas' suit and this is one of them. That's what the reply deadline for today was about.
The USSC hasn't yet agreed to hear the case, they're weighing up the arguments to determine if they'll hear it.
Guerillas never have air support and so far their record over conventional forces seems to be lopsided.
Dayton was just an example of a blue island in a sea of red, much like some locations in your area. Except Dayton lies at a very important crossroad.
I'll spot you the "?" so we don't need to see the Nazi Cat again. Da nada.
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
My turn for questions!
I assume you do know where you are posting this shit, right? You clearly sound like a Dem Commie to most folks here. ("Asked and answered!") Do you not see that?
What is it you are tying to do here, other than piss folks off? Is this educational? Jovial banter? (If so-you are failing, on both accounts, an opinion.)
And, finally... "Choid?" I know several have asked, and I did not see an answer. I will put forth this:
Chode/Hemorrhoid. CHOID? Am I close?!
Yes, this really wasn't needed, but you did ask the original question.... Just trying to keep current.
I do know where I am posting. I guess I failed to realize that free thinking really didn't mean free thinking. It meant having the same opinion as everybody else or being labeled a "commie."
As to the quotes above, I will address them one by one.
As far as the pot bellied militia, it was obviously tongue in cheek, but I tend to be amazed from pictures at the lack of, shall we say, fighting shape, of many of the posters here. Often those who talk of getting down to violence. If there is a civil war, and God save us if there is, it won't be won by fat bellies.
As to exhibit two, the guy is a cunt who goes on and on about shooting other Americans. It's disgusting.
As to exhibit three, you should note that my argument about this is almost exactly the one Chip Roy from Texas, who is probably the most conservative member of the house, just made as to why he is not joining the case. Federalism is conservative, and important. Other things are important too, but Federalism isn't for commies.
I've said many times that I would never vote for a Democrat, and I never have. I'm not sure why it is hard to understand that conservatives come in different stripes, and have different ranked preferences. One might care most about federalism, the next about abortion, another about free speech, and their preferences and life experiences cause them to analyze situations differently. That should be seen as a good, healthy thing, but some of you fuckers treat Trumpism like a religion, and any apostasy is evidence of communism. Frankly, fuck that.
And no, Choid is the nickname of one of my dogs.
I got this wrong. Clearly.
I do remember the dog comment, now that you mention it.
Mea culpa.
To clarify, the question around air support concerns the conventional forces. If cargo planes are allowed to fly in, I suspect this would stretch out the duration of the siege. Not indefinitely, by any means; but it'd probably buy them a month or two.
So in how many cities can this be sustained simultaneously?
With a big air force, for quite a while. But remember, airlifts are just going to be able to keep up subsistence living. Nothing more. It'll still be mad max in there.
And airports, while not as soft as roads, are not impregnable.
Right. So are we talking about a big enough air force to sustain a couple dozen cities? Haven't done the math, but that seems like a lot of big planes (the Berlin airlift was a plane every 30 seconds for nearly a year straight). And will there be a large enough security squad to keep those airports secure? Because it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how a group of motivated individuals could create some problems.
I think we are in agreement that this approach would not be sustainable on an indefinite basis for every possible city under consideration. And once those tough choices get made, well, I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in any of those places which draw the short straws.
