Utopia Talk / Politics / America First

chuck rank	Tue Nov 10 18:47:19 2020 It's a wonderful slogan for laying out where we should put our priorities. It's not Trump First, nor Party First, nor Political Agenda First, nor Tribe First, nor Church First. Savvy political tail waggers chose this moniker for their policies because they knew the value of connecting what they were selling - support for a specific person and a specific set of policies - and the desire of most Americans to see America thrive. Separate the actual sentiment of that phrase from the specific policies and personalities that have been marketed to you under that slogan for a moment though. Political sloganeers didn't invent the concept of caring deeply about America, after all, and they certainly don't have a copyright on it. The most fundamental aspect of America's character is the participation of the citizenry in governing. More fundamental than arguments about the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution, more fundamental than philosophical intent divined from the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers, is the foundation upon which the authority of the Constitution is laid out in the first sentence: "We the People of the United States." Without that basis, we are not America. There are elements on the right who are flirting with the idea of choosing a not-America where they get to make the rules all the time over an America where sometimes they must accept defeat and setbacks. They tolerate the spread of misinformation because they believe it is a consequence way free to increase their own political currency. While illiberal elements have always existed, it is frightening that many mainstream conservatives are willing to lend credence to these unsupported claims through either the ambiguity of their words or their silence in defending the franchise. So I'd encourage my fellow Americans on the board to put America First and remember that the only truly catastrophic election result is the one in which we disregard the authority of the People of the United States and therefore become not America, but something else. Instead of accepting the tarnishing of democracy because "well, it doesn't matter, it will work out in the end, Biden will win, let Trump have his fun for now," you must make up your mind to demand that Trump either substantiate each of his claims with evidence or cease his libel against the United States. It may well be that he makes whatever damaging statements he wants, "everything works out," and we still see a peaceful transfer of power. But his undermining of the process by which we participate in democracy damages our country and that won't be remedied just because he stops being President on the 2oth of January.
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 08:05:09 2020 Why is anyone surprised that Republicans are going along with Trump's actions? Republicans haven't respected the will of the people for decades. Their main strategy for gaining and retaining power is to deny citizens their constitutional right to vote. Every election cycle they conspire to keep millions from voting, all the while they cry about stray cases of election fraud ... many of which are Republican voters. Will Trump eventually back down? Maybe. But it doesn't really matter. What is playing out is the logical conclusion of the GOP's determination to turn back the clock (actually the calendar) at all cost. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, they are coming for all of it by hook or by crook, and they intend to destroy the separation of church and state. They are committed to this outcome whether it be with Trump in these next few months, or the next Republican president. And if they can't get their way, they are prepared to burn the nation to the ground. Personally I'm fine with letting it burn.
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 08:06:58 2020 Frankly the most damning thing about all this is that no one around Trump has split his melon yet.
tumbleweed rank	Wed Nov 11 08:51:15 2020 i'm wondering how many of the heaps of old people in congress just are completely unaware of what Trump keeps tweeting out & actually believe he just merely wants to wait on some legal challenges & is only fighting for election integrity (otherwise, pretty much every R in congress is total anti-American garbage)
Cherub Cow rank	Wed Nov 11 13:13:09 2020 [chuck]: "Separate the actual sentiment of that phrase from the specific policies and personalities that have been marketed to you under that slogan for a moment though ... There are elements on the right who are flirting with the idea of choosing a not-America" That "moment" and its non-partisan efforts didn't last long, did they? That is, the OP started as an effort to unite the country in spirit, then it quickly devolved into partisan mud-slinging. That's not much more unifying than Michelle Obama wanting to "reach out" while simultaneously calling 70 million people supporters of "lies, hate, chaos, and division" ( http://twitter.com/michelleobama/status/1325141022570131457 ). And *because* it devolved into partisanship (rather than laying blame at both parties), it produced the same lies and chaos as those it attempts to critique. Try substituting "right" with "left" and see how that filling forms approach really "sells" the OP perspective. .. [chuck]: "elements on the right who are flirting with the idea of choosing a not-America where they get to make the rules all the time" The right seem to be making the same argument as the left. The right's ammunition: the left has outright stated that they wish for specific acts which would indeed change the country's "rules". These include abolishing the electoral college, packing the courts*, giving statehood to D.C.** and Puerto Rico so that they can permanently reclaim a senate majority, and altering the Constitution so that they can kick out presidents more easily. But sure, the right is "flirting with the idea" while the left is the virtuous one here. *(which the left has dishonestly been saying is mere vengeance for the right's court-packing — dishonest because they're calling the right's court *appointing* "packing" when the left is talking about packing in its true sense: expanding the number of justices to gain power in the same way that Augustus expanded the number of senators for his control.) **(Coincidentally, D.C. has voted >85% DNC for the last 30 years. I wonder if the left would be so interested in D.C. statehood if this were reversed in the GOP's favor? Truly a party that puts "America first".) .. [chuck]: "They tolerate the spread of misinformation because they believe it is a consequence way free to increase their own political currency." Again, true of the left as well. Or do we ignore the "fine people" hoax which Biden himself continued to propagate late in the election? Or Biden calling the Proud Boys a white supremacist group? Or the claims that Trump never denounced white supremacy? Or Chris Wallace asking Trump if he would ask white supremacists to "stand down", Trump agreeing, echoing the language with "Stand back and stand by", but the left trying to make it sound like he wanted them "[on the ready]"? Or Trevor Noah and John Oliver saying that Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a rifle in order to murder? Many people still believe all of this despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Each of those things is patently false, but those things persist in the narrative. Even the origin story of "Alternative facts" said by Kellyanne Conway became a willful misinterpretation which was successfully made canon by the DNC propaganda machine. So to fill forms, it is indeed "frightening that many mainstream [Democrats] are willing to lend credence to these unsupported claims through either the ambiguity of their words or their silence in defending the franchise". So who tolerates misinformation? The left? The right? Can we admit that it's both? .. [chuck]: "they must accept defeat ... remember that the only truly catastrophic election result is the one in which we disregard the authority of the People of the United States ... you must make up your mind to demand that Trump either substantiate each of his claims with evidence or cease his libel against the United States." Problems written into your language: you quietly want the GOP to accept defeat even before sorting through the evidence. You want it to happen now, even though the reality is that court proceedings may take days or weeks — regardless of the validity of the charges (i.e., if true, it will take a while. If false, it will take a while). So you must make up your mind: demand that the election security and American confidence in the process be protected by allowing the investigation to run to its conclusion (whatever that may be), or admit that you want the GOP to accept the possibility of fraud and drops its case right now only because the current outcome serves your interests. No, no. I'm sure that the DNC would not be investigating anything if the shoe were on the other foot
Cherub Cow rank	Wed Nov 11 13:15:57 2020 Pressed enter accidentally, but TLDR: Disingenuous digs at one side while ignoring the rot that's spread through the DNC *and* GOP is not going to unite anyone. If you want to unite people, either drop the one-sided digs or accept that these two parties would prefer to manipulate the people rather than let the people have their say. Neither of these parties is putting "America first".
chuck rank	Wed Nov 11 15:57:33 2020 That you think this is disingenuous is tremendously sad, Cherub Cow. It's quite earnest. You respond to a call to put America first by respecting the vote with a laundry list of grievances against the left (Proud Boys aren't white supremacists, "fine people" is a hoax, Biden will pack the courts). It has nothing to do with the vote being incorrect or fraudulent or compromised. You've simply provided reasons why the offenses of the others justify not respecting the vote, it seems? You go on to insert a miniature rant about Michelle Obama's tweets. The former First Lady's tweets have no bearing on whether we should respect the will of the people of the United States as expressed through their vote. As for the rest of your "both sides" take, there is ONE party that is flirting with the idea of not respecting the vote of the people of the United States. There is one party spreading unsubstantiated claims of fraud to debase our system of elections. There is one party that hitched it's entire future to a con man with no scruples, and one party which now seems to lack to moral courage to accept election results that go against them. It's disheartening that you seem willing to meet an earnest request that America respect the will of the electorate as a partisan call to battle to be answered with both siderism and angry celebrity navel gazing. You are lost if you cannot see the existential risks posed by the party in power spreading disinformation about voter fraud and behaving in a manner that is indistinguishable from the actions they would take if they planned to disregard the election results and stay in power against all democratic precedent because "they know best."
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 22:07:12 2020 "The right seem to be making the same argument as the left. The right's ammunition: the left has outright stated that they wish for specific acts which would indeed change the country's "rules"." My god you are dumber than hell. Equating backing a coup with constitutional amendments and increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court ... which at the discretion of Congress. And even worse than dumb, you are rotten inside. Imagine weeping over the possible end of the electoral college ... which is designed to give disproportionate influence in the election of our President to some citizens at the expense of others. How fucked up do you have to be to think that is OK, let alone righteous? I bet you light a candle every election for the loss of undue influence of white male landowners. I bet it still stings that women and blacks were given the right to vote.
renzo marQuez rank	Wed Nov 11 22:15:22 2020 chuck Member Wed Nov 11 07:57:33 "There is one party spreading unsubstantiated claims of fraud to debase our system of elections." The other party debased our system of elections for four years with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. Most Democrats believe Russia hacked vote totals in 2016.
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 22:21:47 2020 "The other party debased our system of elections for four years with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. Most Democrats believe Russia hacked vote totals in 2016." Yes ... except that there 100% was Trump collusion with Russia, and not serious democrat has asserted that Russia hacked the "vote totals" in 2016.
renzo marQuez rank	Wed Nov 11 22:31:40 2020 murder Member Wed Nov 11 14:21:47 "Yes ... except that there 100% was Trump collusion with Russia," Completely false. "and not serious democrat has asserted that Russia hacked the "vote totals" in 2016." Democrats believe it. Why?
Habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 22:46:23 2020 Hillary pushed the Muh Russia bit every chance she got. Accusing Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and Jill stein as all being assets or puppets of Russia. She has also claimed that there was a " vast right wing conapiracy" out to get Bill. These are crazy conspitacy theories on par with Qannon.
Habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 22:46:24 2020 Hillary pushed the Muh Russia bit every chance she got. Accusing Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and Jill stein as all being assets or puppets of Russia. She has also claimed that there was a " vast right wing conapiracy" out to get Bill. These are crazy conspitacy theories on par with Qannon.
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 22:50:00 2020 "Democrats believe it. Why?" Because some people are morons.
Habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 22:51:14 2020 Lets not forget the Steele dossier. Did Russia hack her emails? We think so. But like.Snowden and arrange, they should.be thanked. Her emails revealed alot....and it was the truth! I dont get how democrats are mad that her REAL emails got leaked but its cool that thr NYT leaked Trumps tax.returns ( disputed if theyre real)
Habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 22:51:15 2020 Lets not forget the Steele dossier. Did Russia hack her emails? We think so. But like.Snowden and arrange, they should.be thanked. Her emails revealed alot....and it was the truth! I dont get how democrats are mad that her REAL emails got leaked but its cool that thr NYT leaked Trumps tax.returns ( disputed if theyre real)
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 22:52:57 2020 "Hillary pushed the Muh Russia bit every chance she got." Muh Russia was correct. Trump even did it out in the open and people like you still deny it. "Accusing Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and Jill stein as all being assets or puppets of Russia." They all are. "She has also claimed that there was a " vast right wing conapiracy" out to get Bill." There was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get Clinton. That of course had nothing to do with Clinton perjuring himself.
murder rank	Wed Nov 11 22:55:26 2020 "Did Russia hack her emails? We think so. But like.Snowden and arrange, they should.be thanked. Her emails revealed alot....and it was the truth! I dont get how democrats are mad that her REAL emails got leaked but its cool that thr NYT leaked Trumps tax.returns ( disputed if theyre real)" Hacked emails = illegal Foreign interference = illegal Leaked tax records = legally acquired from Trump's niece
habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 23:17:54 2020 "Muh Russia was correct. Trump even did it out in the open and people like you still deny it. " Jill Stein was an asset of Russia? Any evidence? Tulsi Gabbard? "There was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get Clinton" Did Q confirm this? The emails may habe been illegally hacked, but how is it different from Arrange or Snowden? The tax records were not legally obtained. And AFAIK they have not listed their source.
chuck rank	Wed Nov 11 23:37:31 2020 It seems your entire point is "nothing is happening in 2020, I still have some unresolved 2016 issues I'd like to discuss."
habebe rank	Wed Nov 11 23:47:27 2020 That assumes this craziness which you sont deny is crazy stopped in 2016.
Cherub Cow rank	Thu Nov 12 12:02:11 2020 [chuck]: "That you think this is disingenuous is tremendously sad, Cherub Cow. It's quite earnest." I showed you explicitly how your post was not in earnest. Or do you really think that your calling for "America first" while simultaneously mud-slinging was an earnest effort? It was not. Even if you truly believe in an "America first" message, you undermined that message in the same breath. .. [chuck]: "The former First Lady's tweets have no bearing on whether we should respect the will of the people of the United States as expressed through their vote." The point of me bringing up her Tweet was to show further evidence that many in the DNC right now have been doing the same disingenuous "America first" message as yourself: mixing a false narrative of unification with their real message of accusation and retribution. It's like saying, "Please, let's unify... you scum who don't deserve unification for the following reasons..." So earnest! It's reminiscent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in how moving it is! How could I not see the peace within that message? Clearly, the olive branch is extended and only supporters of "lies, hate, chaos, and division" would push it away! Well.. people who take the olive branch will *still* be *former* supporters of "lies, hate, chaos, and division" and will be the *lower* ranking members of the One True Party that results when the GOP is dismantled, but once the struggle sessions have run their course, those supporters will come to know the One True Party's great mercy! (That "mercy" involves a GoT "shame" walk and exile into the Cursed Earth.) Are we not merciful?? .. [chuck]: "It has nothing to do with the vote being incorrect or fraudulent or compromised. You've simply provided reasons why the offenses of the others justify not respecting the vote, it seems?" That's a straw man; that is the opposite of my meaning. The offenses of one party do not excuse the offenses of the other. I have said this for years now: a false equivalency does not justify a fallacy of relative privation. I.e., one party being "better" than the other does not excuse the problems of the "better" party. Neither of the major parties' problematic political actions should be justified by the "worse" party's actions. All that creates for politicians is an opportunity to be even more extreme when the pendulum swings to their side. E.g., Party A does something wildly unpopular. Party B now knows that they're the more popular party, so they Trojan Horse wildly partisan policies into their platform because they think they have a victory locked in. "Somehow" that creates even more division, and the pendulum swings farther out — further into the extremes. Incidentally, and like has been pointed out by others, this is why "There is one party that hitched it's entire future to a con man with no scruples". The DNC made itself so unpalatable that they gave Trump a win in 2016, and they lacked the "moral courage to accept election results that [went] against them" by blaming Russia for their own failures, litigating for years to prove that narrative. And heading into the 2020 election, the DNC outright stated that they would do exactly what they think Trump is doing now if they did not win: vociferously decry the system for cheating them while litigating until they could secure a win. So either both parties were right to litigate — perhaps beyond reason — and/or both parties can be seen for the corrupt partisanship that has become their shared modus operandi. .. [chuck]: "As for the rest of your "both sides" take, there is ONE party that is flirting with the idea of not respecting the vote of the people of the United States." "bOtH sIdEs" right? A little Sponge Bob meme to remove accountability from the DNC? Maybe a dash of "false equivalency"? In reality, *any* party that does not want election security and does not want suspicions of fraud to be investigated is "flirting with the idea of not respecting the vote of the people of the United States". Fraud undermines the good faith votes of citizens. Other things that undermine the votes of citizens: • Saying to just "accept" the results before even the closely contested election areas have been certified • Saying that fraud simply does not exist • Actively working to remove competing parties from the ballot • Violating a state's existing election laws • Shutting down fraud investigations even before hearing evidence • Refusing to audit election systems or verify counts .. [chuck]: "There is one party spreading unsubstantiated claims of fraud to debase our system of elections." Some of the claims are indeed substantiated. Fraud is real. *Every* election has fraud. If you disagree, then you are being dishonest. Or would you not turn with glee to stories of GOP voters being convicted of fraud? That counts as fraud. The only real question is whether or not that fraud is statistically significant. My opinion: in this election, statistically significant fraud which can reverse the outcome will likely *not* be found. So far it looks like only a couple thousand dead people have voted in Pennsylvania. Even if that can be legally certified to be 100% accurate, those numbers won't change the results, and therefore it lacks statistical significance. However, that leaves two major options: 1) Remove voter confidence option: Immediately cease all investigations, accept all counts, and end all litigation. Do not look for evidence. Trust in the pure hearts of the children. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." 2) Strengthen voter confidence option: Continue to investigate the existing claims of fraud. Bring them to their conclusion. If no mass fraud is found, then Trump gets to lose a second time (hilarious for the left; a good bonus which shows them that they were right to doubt mass fraud). If mass fraud *is* found, then people know that even if fraud exists, it can be rooted out and election security can be restored. Bonus 2: if mass fraud is proven and it turns out to have given Biden even *more* votes, then the left gets to laugh at Trump while he runs back into Reality TV and lawsuits. Debasing the U.S. system of elections can only occur if evidence is denied or not even sought out. Reckless accusations for political gain are one thing (e.g., executive error, bad politicking), but the election system has its checks and balances: the judiciary will do its duty to determine if any of the political grandstanding has validity — whether that be the DNC's grandstanding of "Accept it" or the GOP's grandstanding of "Rigged!" Trusting the system to sort itself is the best way to strengthen the election system. Saying to trust it without checking it is *not* going to strengthen it. "Inspect what you expect." .. [Habebe]: "Accusing Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and Jill stein as all being assets or puppets of Russia." [murder]: "They all are." Yikes. .. [murder]: "My god you are dumber than hell. Equating backing a coup with constitutional amendments and increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court ... which at the discretion of Congress." Which is dumber?: • Inferring a coup without real evidence because that's what poorly educated Twitter users are propagating with misinformed memes right now and because it's a sensationalist red herring that aligns with the racist/fascist narrative of Trump's presidency yet completely flies in the face of the legal realities of taking over executive powers in a free country, or • Not having to infer at all but actually hearing from their actual stated words senators such as Schumer, Markey, and AOC saying that the DNC does indeed plan to make those changes which do indeed alter systems which have been in place for decades and centuries and which sit at the core of the Constitution's balance of powers among the states and their branches of government And is it not dumb to allow Congress — which via checks and balances was designed to *not* be able to interfere with the powers of the Supreme Court without an extraordinary majority of support from both citizens and its internal members — to seize control over a branch of government (the judicial) that was created to limit its powers and the powers of the presidency by upholding the Constitution? Is it not dumb to remove those checks and balances by making the judiciary into another elected body that will change its opinions in the winds of public opinion rather than a body whose specific task is to uphold the Constitution above all else? .. [murder]: "Imagine weeping over the possible end of the electoral college ... which is designed to give disproportionate influence in the election of our President to some citizens at the expense of others. [/] How fucked up do you have to be to think that is OK, let alone righteous? [/] I bet you light a candle every election for the loss of undue influence of white male landowners. [/] I bet it still stings that women and blacks were given the right to vote. " How poorly educated do you have to be do think that the electoral college was "designed to give disproportionate influence in the election of our President to some citizens at the expense of others"? Was that merely exaggeration, or do you really believe it? If you believe it, you believe it due to immense ignorance. Have you even heard of Gunning Bedford of Delaware? If you have not — if you're rushing now to search it — then perhaps you yourself should question your own righteousness. Perhaps you share something in common with the common pseudo-enlightened Twitter user whose greatest arguments for the destruction of the electoral college include such gems as "[more people agreeing is better than fewer]," "[all votes should have the same power]", "[The tyranny of the minority is worse than the tyranny of the majority]", and "[the founding fathers were just racist, slave-owning idiots who didn't know anything, while we — who space out on social media, take ADHD meds just to show up late to work, and can barely finish one solitary college degree in five years with a barely passable GPA — possess the mental fortitude and dedication to affairs of state to weigh the pro's and con's of a system of government that has helped to preserve a union for centuries]". Or, perhaps the founding fathers debated these issues at length and considered the consequences deeply. Perhaps they were better educated than yourself and were more deeply interested in the cause of sustaining the rights of citizens than in re-tyrannizing a country through misrule. Indeed, in the documents which show their debates over the future of the new nation, they saw exactly the motives of people such as Schumer, Markey, and AOC: a chance to run roughshod over much of the country on behalf of population centers — centers which would perhaps disagree with each other but which would agree in the cause against less populated states via policy and government. And just as the founding fathers saw, no state with lower population centers would have an incentive to stay in such a union, such a tyranny would not allow these tyrannized states to leave the union in protest, and so their rights would be trampled and their threats of war would be treated like a guarantee of slaughter by the ruling class. In practice, destroying the electoral college hurts the voice of many states and means that the DNC (or whatever party has control of the most populated states) will not have to reach out to GOP or independent states for permissions. The DNC will be in a position to act unilaterally, expanding the powers of the executive and implementing policies which do not serve one people without tyrannizing another. An electoral college means that people have to cross the aisle, build coalitions, and have a broader base of appeal. This means that the executive branch does not over-reach its purview, because doing so means a loss of support. This means an executive branch which, rather than taking divisive pot-shots every time they feel a seed of power in their hands, only does things which truly benefit the nation at large. Every time you see a DNC candidate win the popular vote but not the college or a GOP candidate win the college and not the popular vote, you're seeing the cost of their partisanship. You're seeing that they failed to represent the people at large. Without the electoral college, that metric is gone, and all that's left is a mob that can best be controlled through poor education, savagery, and policies which keep them enthralled to their new lords. It's a Utopia oddly similar to Mega City One, where you either join the corruption of cities or face the irradiated wasteland. "Hunger Games", likewise, comes to mind, with its prosperous capital district and suffering satellite districts all dutifully sending supplies under fear of annihilation. Just as our New Founding Fathers envision.
Cherub Cow rank	Thu Nov 12 12:13:54 2020 *"How poorly educated do you have to be [to] think that"
chuck rank	Thu Nov 12 16:19:49 2020 Geez Louise. Trump is making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. He's behaving in exactly the manner one would expect of someone who won't be handing over power (claiming he won the election against all evidence, claiming there was widespread fraud, purging non-loyalists). Yet your position is "Reckless accusations for political gain are one thing...[but, here's why it's not a big deal]." It IS a big deal though. That he almost definitely won't seize power in the end doesn't make his public flirtations with it any more okay. Also it strains credulity that you call people disingenuous, coming from a position of "I don't support Trump, but here's a hopeful wall of text about hidden voters who might re-elect him based on Ben Shapiro's twitter, here's another wall of text about how Youtubers might just have uncovered pivotal evidence to keep him in office, here's a sprinkling of vaguely ominous posts about AOC and court packing and ruminations about how Dems will change our country forever if they get power, here's some tangential thoughts I have about how unfairly the Proud Boys have been treated and how unfair it is to bring up "fine people on both sides"...just 20 pages that totally lay out my huge overlap with Trump in this as well as my personal fears that would justify support for actions he might take, but again, as I've said before, I have no horse in this race." You're either lying to us or lying to yourself. That you frame what Trump is currently doing as "strengthening voter confidence" is downright Orwellian. It was his unfounded claims - the claims which he continues to make - which destroyed voter confidence in the first place. It will stay destroyed long after his unfounded claims are resolved. My central argument is that it is Unamerican to try to delegitimize our election for any reason whatsoever other than because one has strong evidence that the election was illegitimate, and that American's should put America first by not doing that and not letting people who do it go unchallenged. A simple "Hey, you're entitled to your recounts and legal challenges but there has been no evidence of fraud in this election" from Republicans would go a long way here. We're just not seeing that by and large. Some prominent Republicans are issuing statements that skirt the issue while others are actually fanning the claims of fraud. Instead of actually discussing this issue, you've decided it's better to call me disingenuous, play the greatest hits from your personal internet grievances playlist, and use this thread to argue against people on Twitter who have used Sponge Bob memes against you maliciously because that's apparently something that really stuck in your craw. WTF, Cherub Cow?
TJ rank	Thu Nov 12 17:18:33 2020 CC: Cheers! A grievance is a complaint that may or may not be justified. Justified or not it is a constitutional right. It is excellent that you fully understand the importance of grievance resolve. It is as American as American can be.
jergul rank	Thu Nov 12 17:29:02 2020 Disgruntled employees have rights, even during the termination process!
tumbleweed rank	Thu Nov 12 20:40:47 2020 this is what Trump put out last night (+ tons of other shit of course) (& retweets ARE endorsements from Trump) [the Jon Voight video] http://twitter.com/jonvoight/status/1326323889417322497 he is NOT simply waiting for his "grievances" to be resolved in court... he doesn't even know any details of the court cases
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: