One basic rule of online discussions is to not project your assumptions on someone absent evidence. Throwing insults is also pretty inane and I don't normally waste a bit of energy on people who do that.
I'm going to make an exception, because this is a learning opportunity.
"People will address those questions by open and public discussions."
We are talking about a messy divorce from a greedy and evil faction. Do you really see them wanting to have open and public discussions? I don't, so now you're stuck with "how can we force them to accept the divorce under our terms". I've seen no evidence that the Dems and their backers have any desire leaving us with anything. They want total power.
Where am I wrong there? This is the real world.
"Why do you throw away an idea just because you don't know the answers to some of the things right now? "
Several reasons.
A. I do know the answers to those questions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked them in the manner I did. The answers are that there is no solution to issues like this that both sides will agree upon. None. They don't compromise.
B. The one sure way to have them win is for our side to be divided. We've got some who want to start a 3rd party, and others (like me) looking to take over the GOP. Then you've got others like yourself who want secession. We'd like to have everyone on the same page instead of dividing.
So I'm hoping that if you see the impracticality of secession, you'll pitch in and help out in the more likely paths forward.
For the record, a third party is how I'd rather operate, but that's not viable in the time frame we have, so I've opted to go with the path with the greatest likelihoods of success, and that's to work within the existing structure of the GOP. We can change it into a MAGA party if all of us pitch in.
If you can respond without insults and bad assumptions, I'm interested in your response. If not, there's a block function which I've almost never had to use, but you only get one intellectually dishonest take with me. 2 strike rule.
One basic rule of online discussions is to not project your assumptions on someone absent evidence. Throwing insults is also pretty inane and I don't normally waste a bit of energy on people who do that.
I'm going to make an exception, because this is a learning opportunity.
"People will address those questions by open and public discussions."
We are talking about a messy divorce from a greedy and evil faction. Do you really see them wanting to have open and public discussions? I don't, so now you're stuck with "how can we force them to accept the divorce under our terms". I've seen no evidence that the Dems and their backers have any desire leaving us with anything. They want total power.
Where am I wrong there? This is the real world.
"Why do you throw away an idea just because you don't know the answers to some of the things right now? "
Several reasons.
A. I do know the answers to those questions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked them in the manner I did. The answers are that there is no solution to issues like this that both sides will agree upon. None. They don't compromise.
B. The one sure way to have them win is for our side to be divided. We've got some who want to start a 3rd party, and others (like me) looking to take over the GOP. Then you've got others like yourself who want secession. We'd like to have everyone on the same page instead of dividing.
So I'm hoping that if you see the impracticality of secession, you'll pitch in and help out in the more laikely paths forward.
For the record, a third party is how I'd rather operate, but that's not viable in the time frame we have, so I've opted to go with the path with the greatest likelihoods of success, and that's to work within the existing structure of the GOP. We can change it into a MAGA party if all of us pitch in.
If you can respond without insults and bad assumptions, I'm interested in your response. If not, there's a block function which I've almost never had to use, but you only get one intellectually dishonest take with me. 2 strike rule.
One basic rule of online discussions to not project your assumptions on someone absent evidence. Throwing insults is also pretty inane and I don't normally waste a bit of energy on people who do that.
I'm going to make an exception, because this is a learning opportunity.
"People will address those questions by open and public discussions."
We are talking about a messy divorce from a greedy and evil faction. Do you really see them wanting to have open and public discussions? I don't, so now you're stuck with "how can we force them to accept the divorce under our terms". I've seen no evidence that the Dems and their backers have any desire leaving us with anything. They want total power.
Where am I wrong there? This is the real world.
"Why do you throw away an idea just because you don't know the answers to some of the things right now? "
Several reasons.
A. I do know the answers to those questions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked them in the manner I did. The answers are that there is no solution to issues like this that both sides will agree upon. None. They don't compromise.
B. The one sure way to have them win is for our side to be divided. We've got some who want to start a 3rd party, and others (like me) looking to take over the GOP. Then you've got others like yourself who want secession. We'd like to have everyone on the same page instead of dividing.
So I'm hoping that if you see the impracticality of secession, you'll pitch in and help out in the more laikely paths forward.
For the record, a third party is how I'd rather operate, but that's not viable in the time frame we have, so I've opted to go with the path with the greatest likelihoods of success, and that's to work within the existing structure of the GOP. We can change it into a MAGA party if all of us pitch in.
If you can respond without insults and bad assumptions, I'm interested in your response. If not, there's a block function which I've almost never had to use, but you only get one intellectually dishonest take with me. 2 strike rule.