• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Future Books by Republican Senators

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
87019324_10219407232909079_2411074926350958592_n.jpg


Besides Romney, there was not a spine among them.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
From a piece I wrote and a thread I just started, I decided that this fit:

"I quietly objected to Trump socialist decisions but kept my mouth shut because he was one of us, one of us. Gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble."
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
For those who often asked: "How could people back in the early thirties let it happen?", one need only look at the GOP and its enablers.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
These enablers are doing a pretty good job themselves:

911a4e727fc241bbad63fcaf6e395464_18.jpg


giphy.webp

Considering these people are actively running a campaign to take Trump's job away, they can't be reasonnably called ''Trump enablers''. Some have also voted in opposition to many of his key policies.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Considering these people are actively running a campaign to take Trump's job away, they can't be reasonably called ''Trump enablers''. Some have also voted in opposition to many of his key policies.

I beg to differ, they are doing a great job ensuring democrats lose in 2020.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Considering these people are actively running a campaign to take Trump's job away, they can't be reasonnably called ''Trump enablers''. Some have also voted in opposition to many of his key policies.
No, the other poster is correct. He's invoking the "Three Little Pigskins Theory".
In the 1934 eponymous documentary, the incompetence of Larry, Moe, & Curley
enabled the opposing team to win the football game.
 
Last edited:

epronovost

Well-Known Member
No, the other poster is correct. He's invoking the "Three Little Pigskins Theory".
In the 1934 eponymous documentary, the incompetence of Larry, Moe, Curley
enabled the opposing team to win the football game.

Unless you can prove they are ''bad'' on purpose, they aren't enabler; at least not in the common sense of the term. You would also have to demonstrate that they are doing bad in the first place too. Last I have seen, the polls look positive for the chances of any of them against Trump. While polls aren't always accurate, they are more accurate than gut feelings.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Unless you can prove they are ''bad'' on purpose, they aren't enabler; at least not in the common sense of the term. You would also have to demonstrate that they are doing bad in the first place too. Last I have seen, the polls look positive for the chances of any of them against Trump. While polls aren't always accurate, they are more accurate than gut feelings.
Your claim begs questioning the premise...
Is bad intent necessary?
The answer....No.
Larry, Moe, & Curly played football the best they were able.
But it was their entering the game which enabled the opponent to win.

Other than the games being played, the only real difference between
The Three Little Pigskins & the elections (2016 & 2020) is the number of stooges.

Edit...
You wanted proof.
Trivia...
Lucille Ball was in this documentary.
Hamburgers cost only a nickel.
 
Last edited:
Top