SCENE: Mitch BERG is walking around Uptown Minneapolis trying to decide which pop-up brunch joint to go to. Absorbed in thought, he doesn’t notice Avery LIBRELLE has approached
LIBRELLE: Merg!
BERG: Oh,Go…olldarnit, Avery, how have you…
LIBRELLE: Shut up. Why aren’t Republicans condemning Donald Trump’s latest attack on Demoracy?
BERG: Republicans and conservatives are, in droves.
LIBRELLE: But when are they going to condemn it?
BERG: Uh…they re?
LIBRELLE: But when are they going to condemn it?
BERG: While you ponder that, here’s another question: when are Democrats going to condemn their party’s constant erosions of the Constitution and the rule of law? Their efforts to erode Federalism, abolish the electoral college, add states to tack on Democrat Senators, weaponizing the IRS, FBI and DOJ, squat on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th and 14th Amendments, circumvent the FIrst Amendment via “public/private partnership” between Big Tech and the Democrat Party, weaponize “Emergency Orders”, pack the SCOTUS?
LIBRELLE. But when are you going to condemn it?
BERG: (Backs slowly away)
LIBRELLE. But when are you going to condemn it?
BERG: (Leaves building)
LIBRELLE. But when are you going to condemn it?
LIBRELLE. But when are you going to condemn it?
LIBRELLE. But when are you going to condemn it?
(And SCENE)
Good one.
every rino and nevertrumper is condemning trumps question because they do not want to even consider the possibility he might be president
some of us are waiting for an answer to his question before deciding whether to condemn him
hypothetical assume there is absolute irrefutable conclusive proof that democrats stole the election what is the proper recourse under the constitution
a declare the election void and install trump as the rightful winner
b declare the election void and hold a fair election
c do nothing and let democrats continue to steal elections as they like
d there is no recourse under the constitution
if your answer is c then you are asking for restraint in respect of our constitutional form of government from only one side even though you have absolute irrefutable proof they refuse to abide by the rights guaranteed by that constitution, which ensures our side will be subservient forever
if your answer is d then the constitutional form of government no longer applies and civil war 2 is on the horizon
what’s the answer
moderation for what?
It’s the old “denounce” trick. The lamestream mediots might hear of some city councilman somewhere, Repub, totally unimportant nationally, who says something bad.
The they go to EVERY national Republican and say “why haven’t you denounce this?
Mutts.
lengthy thoughtful comment in moderation
pithy version what is there to condemn
if his are not the correct responses to a stolen election then what is
figured it out
moderation will not allow me to use the phrase
sto len
ele c tion
even in response to a post about it
hows that free speech workin out for ya
stolen election
well dang, if that’s not what triggered moderation, what was it?
^ Sometimes I think it’s just random so you complainers know your place.
It’s all just part of the charm of commenting at SitD.
So, Trump is going to suspend the Constitution including the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, or, is he going to cherry pick what he suspends? For Trump, the Constitution must be malleable.
Hey, big guy, I think your 11:27 comment was worth waiting for.
Blah Blah Blah, I Don’t Talk About Anything I don’t want unless I can reframe it into something else so I’m going to Blah Blah Blah.
Did YOU condemn it Mitch? No, instead it’s whataboutisms. I’d be happy to have an actual debate about what you think the Dems have done in attacking democracy and I think, on balance, the GOP loses but this isn’t about that…
Trump made an ass of himself, Librelle isn’t your problem, the dipshit you elected and who likely will be your next nominee, is.
Thread jack all you like by taking it to a place where you get to control the narrative (act of a something that clucks) – but bottom line is, Trump has been nothing BUT antithetical to Constitutional norms and responsibilities. He’s a fraudster and a lies every time he opens his mouth. Just today his company was convicted of tax fraud, and what you want to do is change the subject. How about dealing with the cancer that his Presidency revealed. Trump wanted to put journalists IN JAIL, he wanted to shoot protesters, he wanted to suspend the Constitution. Man up, condemn him and his insurrection – not quote others, say it yourself rather than carping about whataboutisms.
Paddy,
Blah Blah Blah, I Don’t Talk About Anything I don’t want unless I can reframe it into something else so I’m going to Blah Blah Blah.
well, yeah.. I get to do that.
Did YOU condemn it Mitch?
I most certainly have. More to come.
No, instead it’s whataboutisms
“Whataboutism” is what people deflect to to try to help people ignore some hypocrisy they want to defend.
I’d be happy to have an actual debate about what you think the Dems have done in attacking democracy and I think, on balance, the GOP loses but this isn’t about that…
“It” – or at least, part of it – most certainly is about that.
But – you want debate? You shall have debate. Stay tuned.
Trump made an ass of himself, Librelle isn’t your problem, the dipshit you elected and who likely will be your next nominee, is.
Librelle isnt my problem? No. He…er, sh…er, Librelle is my satirical device. Not sure why you have had so much trouble with that idea over the. years.
Thread jack all you like by taking it to a place where you get to control the narrative (act of a something that clucks) – but bottom line is,
I can, by definition, not “threadjack” on my blog – because I, and I alone (along with D ,Jeff and Ringer) initiate the threads.
Trump has been nothing BUT antithetical to Constitutional norms and responsibilities. He’s a fraudster and a lies every time he opens his mouth. Just today his company was convicted of tax fraud, and what you want to do is change the subject.
It has never been “the subject” here. It is in many other places. We may discuss it someday soon, we may not. But again, I define the conversation here.
It’s been over 15 years, and that concept still seems to elude you. #shrug.
How about dealing with the cancer that his Presidency revealed.
Working on it!
Trump wanted to put journalists IN JAIL,
But Obama actually did it. Obama had the most repressive administration re the media since Woodrow Wilson.
he wanted to suspend the Constitution.
And, finally, you got one right!
Man up, condemn him and his insurrection
You need to read this blog and listen to my show much more consistently. Way ahead of you.
And we’re going to have that debate about who’s whizzing on the Constitution. For all Trump’s sins, y’all are still much worse.
By the way, Pad? Trump’s company was convicted. Trump himself was not charged, and his actions were never issues at trial. The CFO gave the whole jig up – and if Trump had had any culpability, one might suspect that Weisselberg might have given him up to get an even lighter sentence.
Yet he did not.
Even that noted conservative tool, National Public Radio, took pains to note that Trump was not a party to the actions leading to the case.
So it appears you’re doing the “whatabouting”, Pad.
Say Mitch?
You’ve met Teh little Peevee. What do you estimate the diameter of his neck to be?
I’m asking because in most of the leftist degenerates I’ve met, the diameter of the triceps is usually .5 of their necks.
I’m guessing it’s about 10″.
That’s too small to hold much of a brain vertical.
Oops…circumference, not diameter.
Still waiting for someone to answer Trump’s question so I can decide whether I should condemn it.
If there were absolute irrefutable proof one party had commited fraud in the conduct of the election which resulted in wrongfully denying the other party its rightful victory, thereby depriving the voters of their rightful office holder, what is the remedy under the constitution? Set aside the election? Revote? Other?
If the answer is ‘there is no remedy under the constitution for fraud in the conduct of the election,’ then by definition, only an extra-Constitutional remedy can apply such as insurrection or civil war.
If the extra-Constitutional remedy is the only available remedy, what is there to condemn?
Still waiting for an answer.
and we’re back in moderation again
I’d be happy to have an actual debate
For that, you’d have to stick around and not drop off your–er, um, “talking points”.