[Chuck Smith]

Observation #1:
So there has been some talk about how Kamala Harris isn't too happy with the Whitehouse and what not.

It has come out that she is very upset about a photo shoot that was done and the photo used was her in some Converse Shoes and not dress attire. She is also upset with how some things are being run and how her "input" isn't being listened too. Plus other things. Again I am getting this from right leaning media but where there is smoke there is fire.

But the Observation I want to make is that this just goes back to my point that the only reason WHY she got the VP nod was because of her race and gender. Why else do you think they "paraded" her out for photo shoots and other things. Why do you think they tried to make her look a certain way in photo shoots instead of just a professional? I mean her "team" should have told her she didn't look good or that wasn't a good outfit to wear... etc. Things of that nature. I will go back that she was under qualified and had a poor track record in the Senate and even before.

Observation #2

So we have the Supreme Court Nomination going on right now. I saw a video of where Senator Booker (remember I am Spartacus) just used his time to throw praises towards the nominee. BUT HIS PRAISES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER JUDICIAL RECORD.... it was all about how she is a BLACK WOMAN. How he reminded her of his mother or some other things. NOT ONE THING ABOUT HER JUDICIAL RECORD. Remember he was also the one who questioned if Kavanaugh "drank beer during the week back in high school". It shows you how this is a joke or some senators are a joke. I have no problem with him talking about the Nominee being the first black woman... but then he should have go off about her accomplishments or asked her about her accomplishments. HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS!!!! Not just been a "hype man".

So... is this another lets "check the boxes" of race and gender? Instead of qualifications.

Observation # 3

With the Supreme Court Nomination as well look how the media is "attacking" republicans about the questions being asked....they are calling Republicans.... "racist" and what not.

Well asking questions of a Supreme Court Nominee about Critical Race Theory is big because with States, Schools, etc all getting looked at and making policy about CRT... odds are there could be a court case coming about it.

The question about identifying what a woman is question.... Well look what just happened in the NCAA Womens Swimming where a biological male won the national title. So with that happening and some swimmers voicing concern and what not... Don't you think that this could come to the court in a case? Title IX issues? Because if a woman was transitioning to be a male and taking testosterone, that person wouldn't be allowed to compete because of "doping" rules. THINK ABOUT IT... that is a good question to ask or lead question into talking about Title IX.

Now the questioning about her lax approach to some sentencing of sex offenders and child sex offenders. The media and others are saying YOU CANT ASK ABOUT THAT.... Why not? It shows her history on rulings and should be questioned or she should answer for that.

Then her defense of Terrorists..... She should answer those questions as well.

So with those observations and the media's reactions... Is it "Racist" to ask questions about someone's work performance if they are a minority? That is the way it seems doesn't it??

Please I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this. I wish some people who lean left would comment on this.

 

[Chuck Smith]

Top progressive Democrat slams Republican senators for 'baseless and frankly racist attacks' against SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson (msn.com)

Right here this article talks about how a House Rep... Jayapal went right to "racist" when asking about this nominees track record. But if you read the article they never were "racist"... they just questioned her about her decisions and made her defend them. Which like I explained above that with CRT those cases could come before the high court, with Title IX and/or gender issues could get cases coming to the high court, with Detainies linked to Terrorism... could come into play with the high court or possible security issues with the USA, etc. Again nothing dealing with her actual RACE but they jump to call people who question anyone of color about choices, decisions, or work related things that they are "RACIST"....

Honestly I would say it would be RACIST not to ask these types of questions of a High Court Nominee when they could be giving opinion or ruling on possible issues that could arise. Was it Sexist to ask a woman about Abortion and Roe vs Wade? You know how people attacked ACB when she was getting nominated? Just curious if some of the same people screaming racism now in the media and what not.... did they come to defend ACB and say people were being sexist?

Again.... People please share your thoughts on this.

 

[Machiavelli]

I log in here from time to time like Canuck, to check out hunting topics, and also just to see if you all actually follow the most critical stories, and what your take is on hot topic political issues. I must say, that you all are either wilfully ignorant or sadly misinformed on so many topics. I debate whether to even bother replying to these threads when I see what issues the most frequent posters choose to chat about.

Given this is today's offering, this is no exception. I'm astonished at what is not talked about as much as what is talked about. I don't follow OANN or Fox. They are clearly propaganda tools at this point for wealthy oligarchs who own media companies.

You want people to share thoughts Chuck. That's my thoughts. Most people's takes on topics here aren't worth wasting time to debate. They are so far out there, and the illogic used is so mind boggling that it often makes me think you all are posting parodies.

If these are your observations of the most pressing issues today, I have to ask whether you even know what the most important topics of the day are. What is the current bombshell topic that you are ignoring? Do you follow actual news?

 

[Chuck Smith]

My question to you is.... Do you think that what I talked about with the nomination? Are Republicans being "racist"?

Is asking someone about decisions they made while a judge racism?

Is the fact that the VP of the USA is upset by how she is being portrayed?

Again.... You are giving no insight at all. Is judge Jackson a good fit or are they overlooking others who might be? Also if you dont think that nominating a Supreme Court Justice isn't "pressing"... well then what is?

Maybe you bring in some discussion or "pressing" issues to the plate to debate?

Or you can just troll like you do?

Have a great day.

 

[Chuck Smith]

BTW....

How is the "fake" laptop story going?

(10) Hunter Biden 'dossier' from a fake 'intelligence firm' | North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum (nodakoutdoors.com)


yes I went back to see some of your posts to see if you actually bring any good discussion to the table. YOU HAVENT and most of it is straight Trolling. And yes I did take the bait on this one. But again... Bring some discussion if you think what I and others have brought up is BS.

I welcome it

 

[Plainsman]

Maciavelli how about you actually voice an opinion on subjects, start a subject, or at least don't whine like your on estrogen. I'm sure you were on the Russia Russia band wagon and thought that was worthy of discussion. Personally I think talking about a judge who will have great affect on this nation is more important than worrying if my shoes clash with my skirt.

If your going to change minds start off with changing your name. Machiavelli was known as an immoral athiest. Maybe Nacissis would be better since it's the lesser evil of the dark triad.

⁹

 

[Plainsman]

I guess some people don't have a clue why some things are important. I think second amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, swearing to uphold the constitution and things others may see as petty.

As the controversial Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing continue, the Supreme Court nominee has faced scrutiny for her support of CRT. Some have called this a conflict of interests of sorts, as one cannot support both the U.S. Constitution and a theory that abhors it.

 

[Chuck Smith]

Plainsman....

Also why I brought up about the "shoes" and Harris issue is.... WAS SHE CHOSEN BECAUSE SHE CHECKED OFF BOXES and not on her actual qualifications? It seems like she might have been. Why would someones staff let them take pictures when they obviously didn't want to take those pictures dressed like that? Did some "handlers" say to do it so you look a certain way? Etc. It is like they want to parade her out and about in a certain manner possibly?

Again.... I said it from the start when she was nominated that her qualifications are not that good. There was and were others who would have been better choices but they chose her because.... BLACK FEMALE.... and that is my honest opinion. And please someone give me proof that she has been "qualified" and done good things while holding the position of VP?

Remember she is the "border" czar.... she was going to fix that problem.... she was going to go to South American countries and get to the "root" of the problem and come up with solutions.... Well where are they????

She was going to go over to Europe and figure out things with Ukraine before this war even started... well how did that go???

I mean there is a book coming out saying how she isn't feeling valued in the Biden Administration. She is feeling she isn't being heard or considered for decisions and what not. That sounds like you were being valued for your policies, decision making skills, or work ideas..... Does it???

 

[Machiavelli]

My question to you is.... Do you think that what I talked about with the nomination? Are Republicans being "racist"?

Is asking someone about decisions they made while a judge racism?

Is the fact that the VP of the USA is upset by how she is being portrayed?

Again.... You are giving no insight at all. Is judge Jackson a good fit or are they overlooking others who might be? Also if you dont think that nominating a Supreme Court Justice isn't "pressing"... well then what is?

Maybe you bring in some discussion or "pressing" issues to the plate to debate?

Or you can just troll like you do?

Have a great day.

Hey Chuck

I see you as being someone at least trying to engage with questions, and trying to be logical with how you see the news of the day. That being said most everyone else is rather toxic in their behavior, especially the administrator.

I've not bothered to contribute much because of many examples of replies that have no basis in reality, gaslighting, or straight up lacking in facts. I'm not sure how much I'll contribute, we'll see how it goes. I participate in forums that are far better managed and moderated, to include several Reddit forums.

I tell you what I think I'll do. I have a couple buddies that also post on those forums, that are liberal gun owners that might be willing to reply to these threads. I'll see if they want to join this place. They might be willing to bring some of those pressing issues to debate, though I doubt they'll continue if they are treated similarly.

As for Plainsman whining about my username I have to laugh. His limited understanding of Machiavelli, and the narrative that religious nuts have tried to set in an attempt to slander him is hilarious. That user name was specifically selected because of his political leanings, and the fact that he angered conservatives because he challenged their world view. The irony is delicious. In fact there is far more depth than that to the choice, but I won't go deeper, as it would likely go over head

And it was not by accident. It only took years for him to call it out, not realizing it was he who was being called out the entire time.

Edit: I just checked with a couple of the guys, and they said they'll create a username in a bit. The one caveat that one dude said Chuck was that he would offer to engage in discussion, but only with you.

 

[Plainsman]

They might be willing to bring some of those pressing issues to debate,

If you have pressing issues why don't you bring them up?

I think second amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, swearing to uphold the constitution

I'm sure there are other issues, but dont you think the above issues are important.

Mach I'll admit to jabbing you, but I was trying to get you to voice opinion rather than simply demean. Also I get perspective from the reasons one chooses a name. Glad your perspective was different than many historical perspectives. Ones name is often as they see themselves. For example I was born on the prairie, all my work has been on the prairie, and for three years in the 1970s I walked eight to twelve miles a day gathering avian and botanical data in the northern Great Plains. Hence the name.

I log in here from time to time like Canuck, to check out hunting topics, and also just to see if you all actually follow the most critical stories, and what your take is on hot topic political issues. I must say, that you all are either wilfully ignorant or sadly misinformed on so many topics

This was one of your first sentences Mach. Did you really think you would be welcomed the hero. Even if you did believe this rather than starting out insulting people which must have been your intent dont you now think it would have been better to simply say " I think XXXXXX is a more important issue? You came off as thinking yourself more important and the great intellectual. Ill discuss with people who respect. Perhaps we can start again.

You will find I often reply in kind. I do that to see how a person responds. That tells me what their original intent was. It's the fastest and most accurate way inside someone's head.

 

[Chuck Smith]

I've not bothered to contribute much because of many examples of replies that have no basis in reality, gaslighting, or straight up lacking in facts.

This is all you do. You dont bring anything to the table to discuss. You bring up things that are debunked... OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Now I am all about engaging in debate, discussion, and what not. But if you or your friends who want to join (I wish and hope they do along with yourself) but you need to bring up discussion. Not BS.

Where I am going with that is all the 4 years of Trump we got posts about.... WE GOT HIM... or.... HE IS RACIST.... then all of those were debunked or brought up as lies. I dont know how many times I have had to tell people (online or in person) about how the whole "good people" thing was a lie by the media. If you take his whole quote you will see he didn't say what the media was pushing. I have always contended that Trump was an ego maniac. Hell I even brought it up when he was ****** he didn't get credit for the vaccine. THERE is another example of how people lie saying Trump was ANTIVAX... he never was. He said take it if you so choose and feel it is right for you and your family.

But I could go on and on and on.... about all of that.

So I will say this.... bring up discussion and debate. If media BS talking points come up like blaming big oil for gas prices right now and not seeing how Biden's own policies are the reasoning for all of this. BTW... I think they switched over the weekend and pointed the finger at someone else but will need to do some digging to confirm that. Or if someone just starts calling people "racist" with no context or facts. Then they dont need to engage with me.

Here is a little background about me and how I think. When Obama ran his first year. I asked many people "why are you voting for him?".... you know the answer I got 99% of the time....CHANGE. Yeah his marketing slogan. When I asked them what policies or what about his platform do you like/dislike.... I still go the response well we need "change". Then when I told them no matter who is elected in this election it will be a "CHANGE"... because it isn't the same guy in office.

I don't care what people's political affiliation is. That is what makes our country great. But please explain to me "why". Just like I threw out about this topic on this thread.... WHY? Explain your stance.

Now I will also tell you I did the same thing with Trump supporters. I asked them "why do you want Trump?".... .now some I got the slogan "Make America Great Again"... but then I ask what do you like about his platform and what not. About 50% of the time I got a response about taxes, about government is getting too big, etc. The other I got slogans... Like Drain the swamp and what not. But when I asked why not to vote for Trump.... I got that they didn't like him as a person. NOTHING ABOUT POLICY. Also they couldn't tell me anything about Hilary's policy either.

BTW... just saw tweet from Shannon Sharpe. If nobody knows who he is. He is an ex-nfl football player who was really good. Now works as a broadcaster or NFL show guy plus has some shows on ESPN. Anyways his first tweet was something about worrying about $5 gas and unemployment. Then someone replied "has your feeling for Trump changed".... then he went off on how he would rather pay $20 in gas than have Trump back in office. This is coming from a millionaire.

That example of Shannon Sharpe shows you how some people just don't care about policy at all.

 

[Plainsman]

😇

 

[Canuck]

Trump's good buddy and role model is murdering, raping and executing innocent Ukrainians. The world has to stop him NOW.
Maybe Donald could call Putin off? You folks worship strange, strange people and politicians make strange bed fellows. Remember that the next time you pump Trump.
I am disgusted that no one seems to care.

 

[Chuck Smith]

Canuck....

I do care what is going on in the Ukraine. But Trump can't do a thing. He can't send troops, he cant send aid, he cant send military supplies, he cant make more sanctions, etc. THAT IS ON THIS ADMINISTRATION.

BTW.... Trump did send aid, military supplies, and sanctioned Putin. When he was president.

But it is funny how people forget about all of that. BTW.... did you see how I think it was the German PM came out and stated he screwed up by not listening to TRUMP and helped fund the Nord2 pipeline among other things.

But yeah... this is all TRUMPS FAULT somehow.

 

[Canuck]

I was being sarcastic Chuck. I know Trump can't do anything. He has already done enough praising Putin's "genius" move into the Ukraine. It is not just one man doing nothing. It is all of us doing nothing and saying nothing that gives Putin the okay to murder innocent folks and destroy the lives they have built. Do you think, like Russia, that the videos of people executed with their hands tied behind their backs and sacks over their heads are fake? This has gone on long enough. I am all for sending Canadian troops to the fight. Why did Trump want the US out of NATO? What would Trump be doing today if he was still in power? I am going to guess Nothing. Less than the administration is doing now for sure.

 

[Chuck Smith]

Trump used the USA pulling out of NATO as a bargaining chip so that other NATO countries will start to pull their fair share. USA funds about 25% of NATO. So out of 30+ countries one funds 25% of it. Kind of lopsided don't you think?

I dont think much of that is fake at all. I believe it is most of it is real what we are seeing over there.

I think if Trump was still in Office this would have never happened.
1. He wouldn't have funded the pipeline. Which wouldn't have made PUTIN go after Ukrainian resources. Plus what Biden has done to the USA and Canada (Keystone XL) oil futures made Russia more OIL DOMINATE in Europe. If you dont think that cancelling the pipeline which would bring future gas and oil to the market from Canada isn't a factor... people are blind. If you dont think cancelling future leasing and drilling on USA grounds isn't a factor... again blind to world energy and the futures on world energy. Then with what has been done in the middle east... Iran deal and what not. AGAIN ALL DEALING WITH OIL or OIL FUTURES.

*****Edit: Uranium is going to be used in the "green" or "renewable" energy. Where do you think some of the larger mines are in the world... Neighboring countries of Russia. Kazakhstan to be more exact. Plus the area's where Russia is attacking in the Ukraine are the area's uranium is mined. So when Biden went all in on "green"... and uranium is being used for batteries and other "green" energy. HMMMM... maybe Putin thinks he should get producing/mining more uranium so he can have more "energy" control. Look out Kasachstan.

2. If Putin still would have invaded.... Trump would have sent over funding, aid, and military weapons.
3. If Putin still invaded... I think Trump would have put sanctions on Russia.
4. If Putin still invaded... I think he would have sent the same amount of Troops that the USA has sent already.

So to say IF Trump was still in office he would be doing about the same as they are doing now. Remember he said he wouldn't put USA into any more wars.

Here is something to also note.... Putin and Russia saw how the USA handled the Afghanistan retreat... He saw how the USA is handling Iran... etc. You see... Biden isn't doing too much to "show" world power or good foreign policy. I am not saying weakness at all but is showing that he didn't handle things too well on a world stage.

Now you talk about "praising" Putin's genius. Again it was taken out of context. He did say the moves Putin did were smart. He is going after resources and forcing the EU to do something they dont want to do at all. He is showing that the USA current administration really doesn't know what to do. Which is true and I think would have been the same under Trump.... IF PUTIN WOULD HAVE INVADED. Because there really isn't anything the USA can do. If they "declare war"... it is bad. If they send in Troops... it is bad. If they want Ukraine to become apart of NATO.. it is bad (breaks some of the treaties in place)... etc.

If anyone who thinks this isn't about OIL or Resources... They are blind. BTW... Russia has invaded bordering countries about every 4 years or so under Putin... Georgia, Crimea (Ukraine), Syria.

 

[Machiavelli]

View attachment 47832
😇

So my friend told me that he tried creating a username, but an admin blocked it thinking it was spam.

Was that you?

His username is Zeitgeist. Can you approve him?

 

[Machiavelli]

So my friend told me that he tried creating a username, but an admin blocked it thinking it was spam.

Was that you?

His username is Zeitgeist. Can you approve him?

weren't you the one referencing crickets above?

Its looking like you don't actually want to chat with him

but I could be wrong

 

[Plainsman]

Never seen the request, but then I haven't approved or squashed anyone. I need to check out the changes on the site. I have been slack at that. Just figured out how to quote not so long ago.
Edit: Checked out the approval queue moments ago. There is one entry, but under it it says spam match as if the ip address was linked to spam in the past or something. I need to ask people a few questions.
Edit:Tell him to try register again with that name and I'll watch for it.

 

[Plainsman]

I see a second request this morning, but it is also flagged with:

StopForumSpam matched (username: 1, email: 1, ip: 43)

Edit: I couldn't match their emails, and as Gmail they looked legit. I approved both so let's see if one is your friend and if they simply came to be trouble makers or actually want to exchange ideas. It would be great if they are actually outdoors people and not political hacks. Years ago I heard after the fact that one of our political opponents was being paid to post on outdoor sites. I was made aware of it long after he was gone. I never suspected that would be a political strategy.