ADVERTISEMENT

Go on Record about a second Trump presidency…

A second Trump term will suspend our descent into collectivism for at least another four years.

Of course, that’s reason enough to vote for any republican, except perhaps for Liz-Dick, over any democrook.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Flie
Aardvark86 said:
Ragnar, as is tarheel, you are fair minded and I do not generally think of you acting like a dick, as I sometimes do with others that I do not engage with. FWIW, my current thinking is that I will abstain from casting a presidential vote, I will vote for Tim Kaine for Senate (as he's harmless enough with decent Jesuit values, and Cao has no business running for the senate), and I'll vote for Ben Cline notwithstanding his wackiness because everybody gets one chance). As painful as that will be to me personally and as much as it will likely negate my right to bitch for four years. But don't take what I've written as necessarily being persuasive, and similarly, I'm not really here to debate any of this anyway, because well...it's "this" message board, and I know the problems and can think through them myself, and I'm fine with others taking different approaches. To be clear, this is actually a very difficult question to answer, as I always like to start by thinking about what I am "for", move to what I am "against," and lastly focus on "risk management." This is a very difficult race in that neither really has much to offer in the first category.

To your question, a few thoughts...

1. Fundamentally, while neither side is exactly made of small government people, the R side at least pretends to be, and perhaps some of that will stick.
2. I'm much more in favor of setting the conditions/structural incentives for economic opportunity and letting nature take its course, rather than thinking that subsidies are the solution to everything.
3. Internationally, I do think we need to be a bit more muscular and less risk averse. Sometimes you actually have to risk your own people to make the calculus harder for bad actors. I think the Biden-Harris admin did learn this a bit over time, but it is not their instinct. At the very least, whether because of Beau or otherwise, there's a long history to support that it wasn't Biden's.
4. Though it's very far from a pet issue of mine, we do need to do more at the border - my personal view is that we ought to provide a path to citizenship for people willing to work on WPA-like endeavors, but that would probably lead people to think i'm some sort of slavery advocate. it's a good way to get us rebased. Certainly we don't need nearly what he yammers on about, but let's be realistic about which side is more focused on that issue, legislative show ponies notwithstanding.
5. Trump's personal and stylistic flaws obviously outweigh Harris'' (in a negative sense). But I'm frankly disturbed at just how long and how much she went into public hiding. When I see her commercials, there is pretty much no image, and no audio, that is not stagecraft. And i don't mean footage or sound from a live event. I mean put together in a studio/greenscreen environment and read from a script. She finally seems to be getting away from that a bit, but I'm just not sure how much is between her ears, particularly coming with the background of an elected AG, which generally entails a personality type that likes to use force to get things done. one of the reasons that concerns me is that it is pretty much the campaign that Biden ran four years ago. (Don't get me wrong here -- letting Trump shoot himself in the foot is a perfectly valid strategy) . Trump may be a complete loose cannon, but at least you come away with the sense that for better or worse, he rather than some unknown 20something in the west wing will drive things.
6. In the risk management category, I still believe that our institutions are very much capable of resisting some of the wackier elements of his ego and rhetoric. The reality is that our legislative branch is still going to be closely divided, and that, imo, scotus will apply the weapons the conservative legal movement has created over the last 5 years ago to the new admin, whoever they may be (major questions, Chevron). And come 2029, the people who get worked into histrionics are either doing so as an advocacy measure or are just clueless about the size of the reservoir of american civics that is still out there.
7. Relatedly, thinking big, i don't think the R's are nearly as in lock step as the D's. And I think that sort of fragmentation is what it may take to drive political decisionmaking away from parliamentary style and back toward representation models. But that's a 'long' proposition.

Finally, to all those who are going to feel the need to nit pick (or some bigger histrionic pick) this, or call me names, don't bother and a very hearty but well intended preemptive gfy.
Click to expand...
AI word salad
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02, tarheelbybirth and Jerome Silberman
Aardvark86 said:
Ragnar, as is tarheel, you are fair minded and I do not generally think of you acting like a dick, as I sometimes do with others that I do not engage with. FWIW, my current thinking is that I will abstain from casting a presidential vote, I will vote for Tim Kaine for Senate (as he's harmless enough with decent Jesuit values, and Cao has no business running for the senate), and I'll vote for Ben Cline notwithstanding his wackiness because everybody gets one chance). As painful as that will be to me personally and as much as it will likely negate my right to bitch for four years. But don't take what I've written as necessarily being persuasive, and similarly, I'm not really here to debate any of this anyway, because well...it's "this" message board, and I know the problems and can think through them myself, and I'm fine with others taking different approaches. To be clear, this is actually a very difficult question to answer, as I always like to start by thinking about what I am "for", move to what I am "against," and lastly focus on "risk management." This is a very difficult race in that neither really has much to offer in the first category.

To your question, a few thoughts...

1. Fundamentally, while neither side is exactly made of small government people, the R side at least pretends to be, and perhaps some of that will stick.
2. I'm much more in favor of setting the conditions/structural incentives for economic opportunity and letting nature take its course, rather than thinking that subsidies are the solution to everything.
3. Internationally, I do think we need to be a bit more muscular and less risk averse. Sometimes you actually have to risk your own people to make the calculus harder for bad actors. I think the Biden-Harris admin did learn this a bit over time, but it is not their instinct. At the very least, whether because of Beau or otherwise, there's a long history to support that it wasn't Biden's.
4. Though it's very far from a pet issue of mine, we do need to do more at the border - my personal view is that we ought to provide a path to citizenship for people willing to work on WPA-like endeavors, but that would probably lead people to think i'm some sort of slavery advocate. it's a good way to get us rebased. Certainly we don't need nearly what he yammers on about, but let's be realistic about which side is more focused on that issue, legislative show ponies notwithstanding.
5. Trump's personal and stylistic flaws obviously outweigh Harris'' (in a negative sense). But I'm frankly disturbed at just how long and how much she went into public hiding. When I see her commercials, there is pretty much no image, and no audio, that is not stagecraft. And i don't mean footage or sound from a live event. I mean put together in a studio/greenscreen environment and read from a script. She finally seems to be getting away from that a bit, but I'm just not sure how much is between her ears, particularly coming with the background of an elected AG, which generally entails a personality type that likes to use force to get things done. one of the reasons that concerns me is that it is pretty much the campaign that Biden ran four years ago. (Don't get me wrong here -- letting Trump shoot himself in the foot is a perfectly valid strategy) . Trump may be a complete loose cannon, but at least you come away with the sense that for better or worse, he rather than some unknown 20something in the west wing will drive things.
6. In the risk management category, I still believe that our institutions are very much capable of resisting some of the wackier elements of his ego and rhetoric. The reality is that our legislative branch is still going to be closely divided, and that, imo, scotus will apply the weapons the conservative legal movement has created over the last 5 years ago to the new admin, whoever they may be (major questions, Chevron). And come 2029, the people who get worked into histrionics are either doing so as an advocacy measure or are just clueless about the size of the reservoir of american civics that is still out there.
7. Relatedly, thinking big, i don't think the R's are nearly as in lock step as the D's. And I think that sort of fragmentation is what it may take to drive political decisionmaking away from parliamentary style and back toward representation models. But that's a 'long' proposition.

Finally, to all those who are going to feel the need to nit pick (or some bigger histrionic pick) this, or call me names, don't bother and a very hearty but well intended preemptive gfy.
Click to expand...
@RagnarLothbrok this is exactly the kind of "maggot adjacent" rationalization I was referring to. You see shit like this:

"But I'm frankly disturbed at just how long and how much she went into public hiding."

...when she has scheduled multiple interviews including 60 Minutes (that Trump pulled out of) and Fox (upcoming) not to mention accepting multiple debate opportunities that Trump refuses. It's simply a lie to push a false narrative. Her commercials are "stagecraft? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. ALL political commercials are stagecraft...every single one. Show me a single Trump ad that isn't "stagecraft". Good grief, that's dumb.

That he actually says the R's are less in lock-step than the Dems is absolutely f'n ludicrous. That Republicans who actually worked with Trump are endorsing Harris left and right is simply an indication of how dangerous they think Trump is...but not Aardvark. Trump's JC chairman says he's "fascist to the core" so Aardvark must think Milley is stupid and hysterical and - shoot - we ain't got nothing to worry about. Trump is telling us EXACTLY who and what he is, he's advocating for using US troops against American citizens, and Aardvark's response is "he didn't say that but if he said it he didn't mean it and if he meant it you missed the context and if you got the context...well...he can't actually do it". His claims that he won't vote for Trump are, let's say, highly suspect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Tom Paris, lucas80, wausauhawk and 3 others
12) The Trump presidency will last less than 6 months due to obvious mental and physical health issues / death and Vance will serve most of the 4 years. My gut tells me with Trump gone, Vance will moderate a bit to be more appealing in order to win 2028. Gen X will never have one of them as President as Millennials take over the White House next 20 years. Gen X will shrug shoulders and move on.
 
tarheelbybirth said:
@RagnarLothbrok this is exactly the kind of "maggot adjacent" rationalization I was referring to. You see shit like this:

"But I'm frankly disturbed at just how long and how much she went into public hiding."

...when she has scheduled multiple interviews including 60 Minutes (that Trump pulled out of) and Fox (upcoming) not to mention accepting multiple debate opportunities that Trump refuses. It's simply a lie to push a false narrative. Her commercials are "stagecraft? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. ALL political commercials are stagecraft...every single one. Show me a single Trump ad that isn't "stagecraft". Good grief, that's dumb.

That he actually says the R's are less in lock-step than the Dems is absolutely f'n ludicrous. That Republicans who actually worked with Trump are endorsing Harris left and right is simply an indication of how dangerous they think Trump is...but not Aardvark. Trump's JC chairman says he's "fascist to the core" so Aardvark must think Milley is stupid and hysterical and - shoot - we ain't got nothing to worry about. Trump is telling us EXACTLY who and what he is, he's advocating for using US troops against American citizens, and Aardvark's response is "he didn't say that but if he said it he didn't mean it and if he meant it you missed the context and if you got the context...well...he can't actually do it". His claims that he won't vote for Trump are, let's say, highly suspect.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

I think it’s unfortunate how much some people are downplaying the existential threat Trump poses. I believe Aardvark means well, but I strongly disagree with him.

All of that said, I am not going to fault someone for doing their best to try to reach the best conclusion and act accordingly. I will share my disagreement and encourage them to vote for Harris, but I am not going to be nasty toward them if they do end up voting for Trump. The MAGA idiot brigade I don’t care about being an asshole to because they are worthless, lying, servile pieces of MAGAt shit who deserve a long and excruciatingly painful death for betraying America. They are too far gone and aren’t worth it.

Regardless, in the event Trump is as ruthless and fascist as we all fear, we are going to need all Americans of goodwill to stand up against that shit—which includes a few million Americans who just so happened to vote Trump because they just so happened to believe he was the lesser of two evils.

You can mock and ridicule them all you want, but at the end of the day they are decent people doing the best they can. I want them on our side if push comes to shove.
 
Numbers 6 through 12 sounds about right. First off, Trump won't be able to find anyone worth their salt that wants to serve in his cabinet. His only recourse will be to fill key White House positions with incompetent suck-ups like Michael Flynn, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon. He'll try very hard to weaponize the Justice Department shutting down all of the federal cases pending against him while going big-time after the likes of Liz Cheney and Special Counsel Jack Smith. Overseas he will pull the plug on Ukraine and cede it to his buddy, Vlad Putin. NATO support will be drastically reduced including a declaration that the US is no longer supporting Article 5. Ditto for support for Taiwan. Kim Jon Un will be afforded and will accept an invitation to the White House. Melania will make a sudden trip to Slovenia in the second month of Trump's presidency and never return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
RagnarLothbrok said:
You can mock and ridicule them all you want, but at the end of the day they are decent people doing the best they can. I want them on our side if push comes to shove.
Click to expand...
I am going to disagree with you here. I gladly accepted that idea in 2016 when friends voted for Trump despite everything we knew about him. None of them voted for him in 2020 though some either didn't vote or voted third party. All that I see regularly are all in on Harris this time - or at least make that claim.

To have followed Trump since 2016, heard what he's said, seen what he's done, to know what he plans - even if they believe he can't actually do it...to know ALL of that and still vote for him is the antithesis of a decent person. He is TELLING them what he wants to do...
  1. he wants to use the administration to punish his political opponents...
  2. he wants to forcibly deport millions of immigrants - many of them LEGAL...
  3. he's advocated for "termination of all rules...even those found in the Constitution" if he thinks it's warranted...
  4. he wants to deploy the US military against US citizens...(that alone should be disqualifying)

And that's just a small though significant sample. They don't get to vote for him now and - if he manages to do those things - say, "Ooops...my bad...never saw THAT coming!!" They're welcome to join the fight against him (they won't) but they will have no claim on decency.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Sad
Reactions: Tom Paris, blackbones, Lindemann and 4 others
RagnarLothbrok said:
Most likely outcome (choose from the following):

1. Trump’s presidency will go down as the greatest of all time. Trump will bring unprecedented prosperity to America, foreign conflicts will be resolved, our country’s borders will be secure, and there will be a peaceful transition of power January 2029.

2. Trump’s presidency will be mostly good and there will be a peaceful transition of power at the end of it in 2029.

3. Trump’s presidency will be somewhat good and there will be a peaceful transition of power in 2029.

4. Trump’s presidency will be neither good nor bad and there will be a peaceful transition of power in 2029.

5. Trump’s presidency will be somewhat bad and there will be a peaceful transition of power in 2029.

6. Trump’s presidency will be a shit show, as expected, but nothing remotely bad as the libs predicted will happen and there will be a peaceful transition of power in 2029.

7. Trump’s presidency will be___________(fill in the blank in your response), Trump will try to make the case to the American people to stay in power, enough Republicans will convince him to step away at the end of his term, and Trump reluctantly agrees and there is a successful transition of power in 2029.

8. Trump’s presidency will be ___________. Trump will make the case to stay in power, there will be fraction and division in the Republican Party, and it becomes a big ordeal with Trump eventually having to walk away and leave in a similar fashion as 2021. MAGA starts uprisings and lawlessness.

9. Trump’s presidency will be __________. Trump will make the case to stay in power, will have the backing of most Republicans, violence and civil war break out with _______ (Trump’s regime is put down and democracy is restored or Trump’s regime wins out, he controls the military, and the USA is a dictatorship).

10. Trump’s presidency is ____________. His dictatorship aims are ___________________. He dies in office due to a Big Mac cardiac attack or he is assassinated.

11. Trump becomes a dictator from day one. He is a major threat to the United States and the world. The world responds by ________. Division and violence in America are _____________. Trump’s political enemies are _____________. Illegal immigrants and other nonwhite, non-Christians are ________. This is the end of American democracy, Trump stays in power until death and autocratic power is handed down.

12. Come up with your very own unique position.

I will go on record as #8. Trump’s presidency will be a shit show, with a lot of social unrest and violence worse than the 1960s. At the end, Trump will try to stay in power, there will be serious division in the Republican Party, but eventually Trump will be forced to leave and he will sulk away in protest, leaving the White House in a similar fashion as 2021.
Click to expand...

Somewhere between 5 and 6. Fat phuck will die before 2029.
 
I'm going on record with:

MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!

437328265_120210784122830387_4459095104386655267_n.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole777
4 or 5. I'd consider the chance of it being anything other than 4 or 5 is under 5%.

January 6th was shameful. An embarrassment and probably a crime on Trumps part. Those of you who literally think democracy almost died that day are strange.

2500 people, out of 74 million Trump voters, entered the capitol. The vast majority walked around taking selfies. Almost none were armed, no armed militias streamed in from the heartland of America to back them up or break them up, none of the military didn't came over to the Trump side to make him a dictator. The institutions of government fully held, the courts decided clearly, there was no armed uprising.

None of the things that need to happen to end democracy and make the USA a dictatorship are going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
Nole Lou said:
4 or 5. I'd consider the chance of it being anything other than 4 or 5 is under 5%.

January 6th was shameful. An embarrassment and probably a crime on Trumps part. Those of you who literally think democracy almost died that day are strange.

2500 people, out of 74 million Trump voters, entered the capitol. The vast majority walked around taking selfies. Almost none were armed, no armed militias streamed in from the heartland of America to back them up or break them up, none of the military didn't came over to the Trump side to make him a dictator. The institutions of government fully held, the courts decided clearly, there was no armed uprising.

None of the things that need to happen to end democracy and make the USA a dictatorship are going to happen.
Click to expand...
What do you think would have happened if Pence didn't make a stand?
 
tarheelbybirth said:
I am going to disagree with you here. I gladly accepted that idea in 2016 when friends voted for Trump despite everything we knew about him. None of them voted for him in 2020 though some either didn't vote or voted third party. All that I see regularly are all in on Harris this time - or at least make that claim.

To have followed Trump since 2016, heard what he's said, seen what he's done, to know what he plans - even if they believe he can't actually do it...to know ALL of that and still vote for him is the antithesis of a decent person. He is TELLING them what he wants to do...
  1. he wants to use the administration to punish his political opponents...
  2. he wants to forcibly deport millions of immigrants - many of them LEGAL...
  3. he's advocated for "termination of all rules...even those found in the Constitution" if he thinks it's warranted...
  4. he wants to deploy the US military against US citizens...(that alone should be disqualifying)

And that's just a small though significant sample. They don't get to vote for him now and - if he manages to do those things - say, "Ooops...my bad...never saw THAT coming!!" They're welcome to join the fight against him (they won't) but they will have no claim on decency.
Click to expand...
In principle, I agree with you. You’re preaching to the choir.

I still don’t see the benefit of ostracizing people who are decent and honest just because they think differently.

I hate Trump and the people who lie for him and intentionally enable him. I will even go as far as to say if Trump or any of his dirtbag sycophants had karma finally catch up to them in the form of an untimely bullet I wouldn’t shed a tear. But demeaning decent people with a different outlook I will not do.
 
Nole Lou said:
4 or 5. I'd consider the chance of it being anything other than 4 or 5 is under 5%.

January 6th was shameful. An embarrassment and probably a crime on Trumps part. Those of you who literally think democracy almost died that day are strange.

2500 people, out of 74 million Trump voters, entered the capitol. The vast majority walked around taking selfies. Almost none were armed, no armed militias streamed in from the heartland of America to back them up or break them up, none of the military didn't came over to the Trump side to make him a dictator. The institutions of government fully held, the courts decided clearly, there was no armed uprising.

None of the things that need to happen to end democracy and make the USA a dictatorship are going to happen.
Click to expand...
In addition to sending his mob to the Capitol on January 6th for the purpose of interfering with the Congressional process of certifying Biden's states-won electors, Trump also attempted to replace certified Biden electors in seven states with fake electors who illegally certified him. Had this scheme succeeded 13.4 million Biden voters in those seven states would have been disenfranchised. Trump has been indicted on felony charges for his role in attempting to overturn the election. His role and the subsequent felony charges should forever disqualify him from holding public office.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Tom Paris, tarheelbybirth, wausauhawk and 1 other person
It is really hard to say, biggest concern I have is there will be basically no adults in the room. At least in his last term, you had some individuals willing to stand up to Trump. You won't have this time around, and there will be a significant brain drain in quality of his cabinet from the first go around. You also have Vance who will be willing to undo election law since the inception of the constitution. So it could get really ugly. Biggest advantage is its basically a lame duck presidency and I don't think republicans want to be tied to him any more after this 4 years, thinking its his swan song.
 
RileyHawk said:
No one uses more words to say virtually nothing than you.
Click to expand...
I’ll distill it for you. He’s a single issue voter, he’ll get a tax cut, woman, and Trump and his goons won’t be going after guys that look like him. Not at first, anyway.
 
RagnarLothbrok said:
In principle, I agree with you. You’re preaching to the choir.

I still don’t see the benefit of ostracizing people who are decent and honest just because they think differently.

I hate Trump and the people who lie for him and intentionally enable him. I will even go as far as to say if Trump or any of his dirtbag sycophants had karma finally catch up to them in the form of an untimely bullet I wouldn’t shed a tear. But demeaning decent people with a different outlook I will not do.
Click to expand...
I get that and I have tried for eight years to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm done. At this point, every person supporting Trump is a liar. They minimize and/or dismiss everything he says or does. Jan 6 should have been the death knell for this f'n clown but not only is he a serious contender for the presidency, he has the absolute, unflinching support of the Republican party...NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS.

Ask them if threatening to unleash the US military on American citizens who disagree with him is just too radical for them to vote for him. Now he has absolutely said he approves of that...

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

...but you won't get one of them to drop support over those remarks. They will either minimize it - "he can't actually do that" (see: @Aardvark86 ) - or, more likely, approve of the idea. That's a different kind of thinking that has no place in this country. They are neither decent nor honest. Period.

Peace!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RagnarLothbrok, Tom Paris and lucas80
The one decent thing about a second Trump presidency is that it may come with a Dem House of Representatives, and Congress will certainly flip in 2026, just like in 2018. Without Trump on the ballot, but his dysfunctional leadership on the ballot, Congress will flip.
 
seminole97 said:
More muscular than trying to install governments in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan?

What does that look like?

Has the neocon 'risk propensity' really worked out all that well?
Click to expand...

Try? The party of peace did install a government in Iraq right after overthrowing that nation's ruler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
Flie said:
Try? The party of peace did install a government in Iraq right after overthrowing that nation's ruler.
Click to expand...
Afghanistan - failure
Iraq - success*
Libya - failure
Somalia - failure
Syria - failure
Yemen - failure

* success in this case means a country now filled with Iranian backed militias, but I don't think broadening Iran's influence was actually the neocons' goal. The geopolitical result is that we spent a trillion bucks and got hundreds of thousands of people killed to make oil cheaper for China.

I think a 17% (qualified) success rate is pretty low, and I'm wondering how the foreign policy gets 'more muscular' than that, but less Boltonesque.
 

Stock Market Today: Stocks steady after record high close; oil tumbles​


U.S. equity futures were little-changed in early Tuesday trading, following in from last night's record close for the S&P 500, as investors looked to a busy day of bank earnings while eying a notable pullback in global oil prices.

Stocks powered to another record high on Monday, with the S&P 500 recording its 45th all-time peak of the year, and extending its 2024 advance to around 22.9%, thanks in part to solid gains from megacap tech names such a Nvidia (NVDA) and Apple (AAPL) .

The Dow Jones Industrial Average also closed north of the 43,000 point mark for the first time on record, with the benchmark riding gains tied to the energy and industrial sectors.

panic-oh-noes.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
seminole97 said:
Afghanistan - failure
Iraq - success*
Libya - failure
Somalia - failure
Syria - failure
Yemen - failure

* success in this case means a country now filled with Iranian backed militias, but I don't think broadening Iran's influence was actually the neocons' goal. The geopolitical result is that we spent a trillion bucks and got hundreds of thousands of people killed to make oil cheaper for China.

I think a 17% (qualified) success rate is pretty low, and I'm wondering how the foreign policy gets 'more muscular' than that, but less Boltonesque.
Click to expand...

I don't view Iraq as a success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97
tarheelbybirth said:
@RagnarLothbrok this is exactly the kind of "maggot adjacent" rationalization I was referring to. You see shit like this:

"But I'm frankly disturbed at just how long and how much she went into public hiding."

...when she has scheduled multiple interviews including 60 Minutes (that Trump pulled out of) and Fox (upcoming) not to mention accepting multiple debate opportunities that Trump refuses. It's simply a lie to push a false narrative. Her commercials are "stagecraft? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. ALL political commercials are stagecraft...every single one. Show me a single Trump ad that isn't "stagecraft". Good grief, that's dumb.

That he actually says the R's are less in lock-step than the Dems is absolutely f'n ludicrous. That Republicans who actually worked with Trump are endorsing Harris left and right is simply an indication of how dangerous they think Trump is...but not Aardvark. Trump's JC chairman says he's "fascist to the core" so Aardvark must think Milley is stupid and hysterical and - shoot - we ain't got nothing to worry about. Trump is telling us EXACTLY who and what he is, he's advocating for using US troops against American citizens, and Aardvark's response is "he didn't say that but if he said it he didn't mean it and if he meant it you missed the context and if you got the context...well...he can't actually do it". His claims that he won't vote for Trump are, let's say, highly suspect.
Click to expand...
Again, Trump is their true beacon of truth. He's right about EVERYTHING.
 
tarheelbybirth said:
Ask them if threatening to unleash the US military on American citizens who disagree with him is just too radical for them to vote for him. Now he has absolutely said he approves of that...
Click to expand...
This definitely gave me pause on giving others the benefit of the doubt. There are many times where there is wiggle room to interpret something Trump said in a far less sinister light.

But not this one.

Honestly, I talked to a buddy of mine last night about when the grace for people still supporting Trump should end. He responded they are mostly sick people and to pray for them. Unfortunately, I am not the praying type, so I don’t know.

I would like to understand how people rationalize this shit but I just can’t. It seriously makes me lose respect for a lot of people and I hate feeling that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72 and tarheelbybirth
Randon said:
In addition to sending his mob to the Capitol on January 6th for the purpose of interfering with the Congressional process of certifying Biden's states-won electors, Trump also attempted to replace certified Biden electors in seven states with fake electors who illegally certified him. Had this scheme succeeded 13.4 million Biden voters in those seven states would have been disenfranchised. Trump has been indicted on felony charges for his role in attempting to overturn the election. His role and the subsequent felony charges should forever disqualify him from holding public office.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. I think it's totally disqualifying for him.

But "if he succeeded" is carrying a lot of water here. He didn't almost succeed, he didn't come remotely close. He failed at every single turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

alaskanseminole

***The Official (now that he's elected) Trump Indictment Thread***

Replies
3
Views
125
Off Topic
Uniformed_ReRe
Uniformed_ReRe
cigaretteman

Opinion A Trump victory would make America poor again

Replies
0
Views
90
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
NoleATL

Companies Ready Price Hikes To Offset Trump’s Tariffs

Replies
12
Views
286
Off Topic
ft254
ft254
cigaretteman

The Group at the Center of Trump’s Planning for a Second Term Is One You Haven’t Heard of

Replies
3
Views
191
Off Topic
lucas80
lucas80
cigaretteman

Congress tried to fix presidential transitions. Trump is testing the changes.

Replies
0
Views
124
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back