Thanks for proving my points with your insane ranting.

Troll psychology! *laughs*

The non compos mentis troll who takes any blog subject no matter how unrelated and turns it into a repetitive unhinged psychotic drivel and spew session about himself and his incessant trolling for advertisement has called me "insane." *laughs*

See comments 19 and 22 for perfect descriptions of you.

Except 19 is posted by somebody else specifically for you and about you, and sod right off; I'll read what I please, troll.

Of course you can post your opinion(projection) that I am troll but that will only work on the feeble minded as it does not correspond with reality.

Idiot troll: If you're going to troll this website and the author repetitively with your monomania and personal bullshit mountain crusade, you're going to be called out for the troll you are.

Everyone pointing out that you're a troll doesn't make everyone else a troll. Calling out a troll for his trolliness is a lot like calling out a racist for his racism. Calling someone on their shit doesn't make you one of them; if it does, then you're Big Money Don! :)

This! Heh. :)

I fail because I point out the truth about the Deathocrats or because you are too dense or pretending to be too dense to comprehend reality?

"Truth" you are unable to backup by link or reasoned argument is not exactly the Merriam-Webster definition of the word.

But if I am wrong then please regale me with a tale of your successes! Point to all these people you have stalked and all the wonderful articles they have written about you!

And there is nothing bare bones about the idea on the One Demand website.

Your website is both bare bones and Big Shit. It's bullshit mountain... mountains and mountains of Big Shit bullshit.

I have seen websites for presidential primary campaigns that have MUCH less detail than the One Demand website.

False equivalency... again.

That is meeting the basic minimum requirement for discussion of an idea- to have an idea and spell out how it can be accomplished which is a requirement the One Demand website meets.

Not even close, troll.

The fact that you would choose to try a moosepoop argument in a feeble attempt to bolster Kick's argument while completely ignoring how Kick tried to dodge the issue by referring to a different website just shows how little integrity you have and the low value that your opinion carries.

Damn, you are dumb; simple English seems such a challenge for you. Also: You're one of those victim trolls who seems to be constantly whining and completely and totally butthurt.

Exactly! Peach pie. :)

Pointing out a similarity is not a false equivalency argument.

You're making my point. You have zero similarities with the subject matter... the very definition and living embodiment of a false equivalency fallacy.

It is not claiming to be the the same in all ways.

This shit again!?

Pointing out differences does not cancel out the similarities.

You have no similarities with the subject matter; that's why it's a false equivalency. Everything the author writes isn't about you. In fact, nothing he's written above the comments section has ever been about you for even a scintilla of a second. His articles are not about you and are not your cue to pivot to yourself.

CW said the website for the GOP 2.0 was a bare-bones website.

Yes, I know.

How dare you post a comment disagreeing with the author of this blog!

Oh, I see your problem; your reading comprehension problems have revealed your obvious ignorance... again.

Duncan has a rather bare-bones website set up for his GOP 2.0 effort already.

~ Chris Weigant

*
That is a factual statement with which I happen to agree. I would also agree that Duncan's bare-bones website for his GOP 2.0 makes your website look like the bullshit mountain that it is, but the article wasn't about you so there'd obviously be no need for me (or anyone else) to compare your crappy outdated lousy website to Duncan's.

After all, this person just has a bare-bones website.

~ Don Harris

*
That is an incorrect statement since Duncan doesn't "just" have that bare-bones website. He obviously has another, and for all you know, he might even have several more. It's also stupid to pivot from a discussion regarding Duncan to a discussion regarding yourself and your begging for shilling/advertisement as if you and Duncan are somehow equal because of your belief that his website is as shitty as yours... it isn't. Yours is hands down the Big Shit... just like Big Money; it's "concentrated evil" because I said so.

Moving on.

What does the website you put up have to do with CW's assertion that the GOP 2.0 website is a bare-bones website?

Are you seriously this damn stupid? Is English your second language? I'm only asking because you seem to have infinite trouble with simple English words and basic meanings.

Your continued dodge of saying I should get my own website when I press CW to address One Demand does not in any way relate to whether I should be able to post my opinion here that CW should address One Demand.

Nowhere in that comment did I say you should get your own website. You already have you own website, moron... remember? The "Big Shit" website that's totally way worse than Duncan's bare-bones website. I was actually discussing CW and the likely catalyst for him having his own website, but it doesn't surprise me (or likely anyone) that you'd get confused and assume it was about you, but everything is not about you. Also, you can shove your "demand" right straight up your backside... might want to extract your empty head first.

I have my opinion of your trolling too, and I'll post it whenever I damn well decide to do it. If you don't like being called a troll or a stupid troll or any number of a myriad of other dead-on-accurate disparaging things, then you are free to stop trolling the author with your repetitive drivel and spewage.

CW has decided that I should be able to. It's his blog and his decision.

It's your claim that CW "has decided" to allow you to troll his blog and continue to disparage him with your bullshit false equivalencies and advertisements? Prove it. Meanwhile, "it's his blog and his decision" is exactly what dang near everyone on this blog keeps telling you. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting; no shilling for your stupid shit.

If you have a problem with that take it up with CW and stop trolling me.

I am allowed to post my opinion of your trolling. If you don't like my comments regarding your repetitive bullshit mountain and turning this blog into an advertisement for your monomania and personal crusade and making every blog article about yourself, I don't give a flying duck in space.

You can disagree with me without the dodges and trolling using rational arguments but you choose not to and instead enjoy exposing your delusions and inability to make a rational argument.

Now listen closely troll, and I'll 'splain something to you: YOU HAVE NO EFFING IDEA WHAT I THINK OR WHAT I CHOOSE. Now sod right off... might want to extract your empty head first!

Grow up.

Never. Then I would just be a crusty old loser like you. (props to Bashi)

So to recap:

* You fail our mental competency test
* You fail our purity test
* You do not pass "go"
* You do not collect $200 dollars
* You get no votes from us
* We're writing in our own names
* This great idea of ours will change your behavior... any day now.

https://youtu.be/8rh6qqsmxNs?t=92

At the bottom of the GOP 2.0 website is nice Reagan quote that is pretty much the solution to your traction problem, though I'm sure you are too self-centered and stubborn to entertain the notion...

Trump was able to get away with a remarkable amount of corrupt, and likely criminal, behavior while in office due to his justice department's belief that he could not be charged while in office and his ability to use the office to shield himself from investigation. Since his departure from office, we've seen multiple criminal investigations begin moving forward again.

It will be interesting to see how many of his supporters stick with him if he starts facing charges from the legal system instead of just the political system. Will he still maintain his death grip on the GOP if he's indicted on various fraud and corruption charges? What if he's actually convicted?

I suspect that politicians like Duncan and Cheney are playing the long game, expecting that Trump will eventually go down in flames due to his various legal troubles, and when he does, they'll have positioned themselves to fill the power vacuum that he'll leave.

Where are all the comments about CW wasting time writing about someone he didn't recognize proposing something that has a chance of success more that is slim to non-existent but at least he should get credit for trying?

Your near-daily exercises in repetitive false equivalency are again duly noted. "If only" you were an elected official in a swing state like GA -- or any state at all, for that matter -- or "if only" you were on television like the subject matter, then perhaps you'd have a reason to pivot your pathetic monomania. Comparing yourself to him!? *laughs* False equivalency fallacy.

Moving on.

After all, this person just has a bare-bones website.

Incorrect: https://ltgov.georgia.gov/geoff-duncan

FACTS

* He's the current Lieutenant Governor of Georgia
* He's a former professional baseball player
* He recently announced he's not running for reelection
* He was also recently "in the news" and on television
* He's a college graduate

Other than that... and if you ignore a shit-ton of other facts... he's exactly like you. *laughs*

And of course CW would be happy if the person were to succeed because CW thinks it would be a good thing if he did succeed.

And, of course, it's his blog and he's entitled to his opinion... one of the overwhelming catalysts for undertaking the creation of your own blog, I should think.

If only CW were not just like the Republikillers when to comes to people that are trying to do the same thing of pointing out the corruption of the Deathocrats and offering an alternative, then it might be possible to read articles like this without seeing the blatant hypocrisy in CW's criticism of the Republikillers.

False equivalency on your part. You're simply CW's troll. Also, I'm quite sure he doesn't give a shit if the troll who repetitively trolls him on his own blog thinks he's a hypocrite.

Glass houses, CW. Glass houses.

Y :)

Tens of thousands of Republicans have switched their Party affiliation, more so after the recent political cycle than usual. There's still time to win them back, of course, but at the present time, they're fleeing... a trend that continues unabated:

Republicans Flee the GOP After Capitol Riots

The number of people calling themselves members of the Republican Party is near an all-time low after the January riots at the Capitol.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-04-07/republicans-flee-the-gop-after-capitol-riots

*
While a GOP voter changing party affiliations is by no means a guaranteed vote for one party or any other, it could make huge differences in those swing states where the outcome is almost always close.

Those clinging to the Trumptanic risk alienating the Republicans that aren't part of the Trump cult and can never or will never vote for a pathologically lying criminal con artist traitor to America.

Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

~ Donald Trump, January 6, 2021

*
Yes, remember that day Don the Con sent the Trump cult to the United States Capitol and told them to "fight like hell." I'm sure those rubes that were part of the conspiracy who are sitting in prison will never forget. :)

I'm not sure Kick [3] is right about 'leaving in droves' but one can hope this is an accelerating trend that will leave the hardcore magaholics as a shrinking minority within a split party. And I would hope news and commentary would more accurately reflect numbers, rather than giving disproportionate weight and free publicity to a minority party and to a faction within the minority party as they do now.

Yes, sir. He's not the only one seeing the proverbial handwriting on the wall:

A Call for American Renewal

They are leaving the GOP in droves, and there's power in the sheer numbers.

Meanwhile, the New York AG's office announced (checks watch) a few hours ago that it has notified the Trump Organization that its investigation into Trump and company "is no longer purely civil in nature."

We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA.

*

Raise your hand if you knew it would eventually come down to New York, New York. Not everybody at once, of course.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
These little town blues are melting away
I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York.

Abjuring, eh? Very nice!

In fact, I've been enjoying your posts lately

I have to admit, when these guys (Cheney, Duncan) make soppy idealistic speeches about the Republican Party the way it used to be, with a coherent and occasionally popular program and a morality that started from political honesty, I miss the good old days of my childhood when I was a Massachusetts Republican in the 1960s and early 1970s. Honesty and ethics were the first item of business, always to be contrasted with the rather seamy backroom politics of the urban, gritty, and (say it) ethnic Democrats who ran the big cities!

Of course, that wasn't the complete picture, and I was just a kid. But even as I gravitated to the Democrats in the 70s, it wasn't only because I was getting a little older. Even then, anyone could see that the state GOP, of the brand called "Liberal Republican", was being edged out on the national scale by the dark chaotic forces that Goldwater had mobilized in '64, that Nixon had cautiously enlisted for his comeback, and that Reagan would cheerfully unleash on the nation in the 80s.

Duncan and Cheney are blowing smoke, if they think that abjuring Trump and returning to the Republican Party of - what: 2014? 2004? 1994? - will really build a winning coalition on a national scale, without the built-in advantages of the Electoral College, the gerrymandered Congressional districts of the red states, and some serious voter suppression of the kind being rushed into law across the Trump-state zone.