Trump(s) will not be missed.

Author: RationalMadman ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 37
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 318
    Forum posts: 9,758
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    The entire Trump legacy, in business and law/politics, is stained beyond repair.

    The only hope any single of his family has, to avoid being associated with the vile narcissism and insanity that he brought to US culture and politics, is to disassociate from the Trumps completely. I am not saying that it would be easy to do so but I am indeed suggesting that there is no way whatsoever for them to escape the stain on 'Trump'.

    He has thoroughly ruined everything he built legacy-wise. Good job Donald, your grandchildren will grow up despised for sins of their grandfather.
  • Wagyu
    Wagyu avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 130
    1
    2
    4
    Wagyu avatar
    Wagyu
    What are you doing back here. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 318
    Forum posts: 9,758
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Wagyu
    You are not even an iota more entitled to be here than I am so first justify your existence on the website to me, before asking why I'm back.
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,847
    5
    8
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    Welcome back.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    I think you underestimate their ability and willingness to exploit people. There is still roughly 30% of American population that fanatically supports trump. He brought in millions after the election in fundraising claiming it was for the lawsuits while in reality a large chunk of it was syphoned off for other stuff. 

    At this point, the Trump name is mud for the majority of the population of the country. There is no reforming that. Tiffany and Baron didn't really have anything to do with his administration so they may be able to avoid that mess, but the other 3 were quite involved in the administration and some of the associated crimes. (like Ivanka stealing from the inauguration campaign fund).

    There is no way out for them, all they can do is go further in. And that is exactly what they will do. Ivanka is already floating the idea of running for the Senate in Florida. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    some of the associated crimes
    Name one. The Mueller farce, aimed at Trump, had 30+ indictments, but no one named Trump. Inciting a riot [or, as Shoofly said over the weekend, "inciting an erection"] with words that wouldn't incite Shoofly's premature efactulation, when Pelosi, last fall, said "we have arrows in our quiver, and we will use them" speaking against Barrett's approval to be on then Bench? Her words were were metaphor, but Trump's were not? You have teeth on both sides of your mouth, I trust. Try using your other side.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Welcome back RM
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    some of the associated crimes
    Name one.
    I just did. the Trump's stole money from their inauguration committee. They booked their own hotel and charged like 3X the going price to rent space. That is a crime. 

    he Mueller farce, aimed at Trump, had 30+ indictments, but no one named Trump.
    He explicitly said that since the justice department memo said trump could not be charged, that it would be a miscarriage of justice to accuse him of a crime because he would not have the ability to defend himself in court. He said at the very start of his report that he could not, and would not, name trump in any of the crimes. Muller did not say trump didn't commit crimes, he said he didn't have the ability to charge him with any crimes. 

    when Pelosi, last fall, said "we have arrows in our quiver, and we will use them" speaking against Barrett's approval to be on then Bench? Her words were were metaphor, but Trump's were not?
    ok, but Pelosi didn't spend months telling people that america would be destroyed if her supporters didn't take action to stop biden being confirmed. She didn't tell them all to gather and march on the captiol to try to stop a democratic election from being completed. And no democratic supporter has ever attacked the US capitol. Trump did these things. He did incite an insurrection against the US government and democracy itself. 

    Try using your other side.
    you watched trump cultists attack democracy and murder a police officer and you are still sitting here defending trump as if he did nothing wrong. You should really take your own advice. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I just did.
    According to whom? Crimes have been alleged from before his campaign began. No charges filed, no trial conducted. Cross those hurdles, bud.

    justice department memo said trump could not be charged,
    Again, according to whom? DOJ policy, since Nixon, that a predident cannot be charged with a crime? Not according to the Constitution, so, which carries water? DOJ policy, or the Constitution?

    america would be destroyed if
    Yep. Pelosi, Clinton, Shoofy, Biden, Oba'a have all said that Democracy was endangered by Trump, but none would say why, or cite a specific endangerment. Accusations must carry water to you, but, Justice says that doesn't cut it. Show me some evidence, not your weak claims.

    trump cultists attack democracy 
    I watched some angry people enter the Capitol, but who says they were Trump cultists? You? The media? Your heroes? Sorry, Show me the evidence of who they were. Seems Antifa is rioting in the streets now. Got an excuse answer for them?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 318
    Forum posts: 9,758
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @fauxlaw
    I watched some angry people enter the Capitol, but who says they were Trump cultists? You? The media? Your heroes? Sorry, Show me the evidence of who they were.
    They said it, both before on social media, during verbally and after on Parler or wherever else they spread their vitriol.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @RationalMadman
    They said it
    WHO SAID IT? You'll apparently believe anybody with a mouth. WHO? Who are Trump's accusers? Where are the indictments? Due Process, bud. It means something. So far, you have squat. Show me the evidence you claim exists. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 318
    Forum posts: 9,758
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @fauxlaw
    Due process means something sometimes and nothing at other times.

    If due process meant nothing at all, the election would be declared a fraud and Biden's genuine victory would be declared fallacious just because an angry mob grabbed metaphorical pitchforks and threw a non-metaphorically dangerous tantrum.

    So, you and I do agree, due process means something. At other times, it clearly doesn't mean much or there'd be no corruption in the world in the first place.

    Due process for Trump goes beyond imprisoning him, he has scarred the nation in a way that is so deep and damaging it may carry over three generations before the nation and culture of US has properly healed from what he's done to it and abused his influence to achieve cultivating.

    I don't want to link to or quote a lunatic QAnon supporter or whatever else. If you don't believe that Trump was behind things, engineering them with every intention of taking the white house by brute force and intimdation, then you are simply ignorant and it takes about 6 minutes of searching articles online to get yourself informed at a basic level that already would open your mind on the matter. It's your choice, I am not here to spoonfeed you the truth.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @RationalMadman
    it takes about 6 minutes of searching articles online
    Sure, I can take 6 minutes and find your articles. But, what backs up your articles? A wish balloon? I believe indictments. I do not believe six minutes of research will find any indictments. Six months of research will not find indictments. Show me EVIDENCE that will stand in a court of law. Your six minutes are ticking. Go.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @RationalMadman
    six minutes
    Trump's alleged erection [according to Shoofly] occurred on Jan 6. Apparently, he said some inciting words, and they are all on video, and released in print. Either they were positively inciting, or, 19 days later, DOJ is still researching dictionary definitions and consulting existing statutes for violation of free speech, and corruption of a peaceful society. More than six minutes, but no one at DOJ has an indictment.  Show me THAT, and you may have an argument. Without it, you're hot air and little else. Enough to fill your wish balloon. Start blowing.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    According to whom? Crimes have been alleged from before his campaign began. No charges filed, no trial conducted. Cross those hurdles, bud.
    investigations are ongoing. Ivanka was interrogated for 5 hours about it in December. Don jr has been called in as well. 

    justice department memo said trump could not be charged,
    Again, according to whom? DOJ policy, since Nixon, that a predident cannot be charged with a crime? 
    yes, that is the policy he was referring to. 

    Not according to the Constitution, so, which carries water? DOJ policy, or the Constitution?
    I'm inclined to agree with you that Trump could have been charged. But that is not what Mueller determined. He said DOJ policy was that the president can't be charged and he therefore could not accuse Trump of a crime while he was a sitting president. I agree it's dumb. But that is what the Mueller report said. He was very clear that his report did not, in any way, exonerate trump of criminal wrong doing. 

    america would be destroyed if
    Yep. Pelosi, Clinton, Shoofy, Biden, Oba'a have all said that Democracy was endangered by Trump, but none would say why, or cite a specific endangerment.
    lol, they said democracy was endangered. Then trump incited an attack on democracy to try to steal an election he lost. All you are doing is proving that they were correct in their warnings. 

    I watched some angry people enter the Capitol, but who says they were Trump cultists?
    They did. There is tons of coverage of people in that mob being interviewed. They were very clear why they were there. They were there to try to steal the election for donald trump because he told them to. 

    Sorry, Show me the evidence of who they were.
    The FBI has started rounding these people up and arresting them. So far no members of Antifa can be found. Every single one of them when arrested is a Trump loving MAGA idiot and/or Qanon lunatic. 
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 12,459
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @RationalMadman
    You are not even an iota more entitled to be here than I am so first justify your existence on the website to me, before asking why I'm back.
    I found this unironically hilarious 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 318
    Forum posts: 9,758
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @fauxlaw
    I am neither going to ignore you nor directly address your misdirective loaded angles.

    Let me ask you about Trump and stop you redirecting it away from him. 

    Trump rose to power first and foremost by raising a conspiracy theory based on sheer racism and prejudice; he stated that Obama was not a real US citizen because he was black, specifically of Kenyan heritage, and had an Islamic middle name. Why didn't he demand the birth certificate of George W. Bush? It is simply racism, do not even try to deny it or say anything about it.

    From that 'footing' he build a foundation of his support base who had been otherwise silenced since the KKK's heydays (don't go into how Lincoln was a Republican, we both know he was a racist who simply ended slavery to stop a civil war, the 'south' that was then against him are now the Republican support base, except for California and the swing states who have swing towards Dems this last election).  The reason most people had never even heard of organisations like the 'Proud Boys' and other neonazi offshoots of the 'KKK ethos' is that they were silenced and knew if they spoke loud and proud of their racist, bigoted beliefs that there'd be backlash. Trump inspired something in many of these types who had been tame and ranting in a quiet corner, to suddenly being a dangerous united front that no longer were ashamed of their unbelievably disgusting and immoral beliefs and means of acting on those beliefs if they had their way.

    Trump paced his racism, avoiding being directly racist against blacks until after the 2016 election when his staff and he began using terms like 'shithole nations' and avoiding criticism of neonazi militias, going so far as to say 'there were fine people on both sides' or something along those lines when asked what he thought about a severe hate crime event. As his career progressed over the four years, he slipped the mask down more and more until eventually he stopped hiding his resentment for blacks, which he'd shown towards the Central Park Five, refusing to admit he was wrong about their guilt as rapists and that they no longer deserved the death penalty.

    He is a president who literally advocated for 'guilty before proven innocent' for five black teenagers in one of the most prolific examples of police brutality and framing under George W. Bush's regime (another Republican with very few morals but that's another debate for another day).
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 12,459
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    Also if I didn't say before, welcome back
  • Wagyu
    Wagyu avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 130
    1
    2
    4
    Wagyu avatar
    Wagyu
    --> @RationalMadman
    Damn I see how it is 
  • Wagyu
    Wagyu avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 130
    1
    2
    4
    Wagyu avatar
    Wagyu
    --> @RationalMadman
    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t intend to offend, I was just surprised to see the  mysterious myth everyone talks about’s name pop up. You were before my era so I do not even know you 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    @RationalMadman

    GWB... And there was  another with very little presidential qualification or necessary intellect.

    These wealthy people really should be required to sit exams before they attempt to buy the ultimate position of power and responsibility.

    Can they string a succession of words together to form a logical statement, would be a start.






  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    These wealthy people really should be required to sit exams before they attempt to buy the ultimate position of power and responsibility.

    Which question did HRC get wrong when she outspent DJT two to one in 2016?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    You miss the point completely....Or ignore it.

    Who spends the most money is irrelevant....They all spend a lot of money.

    Allowing an incompetent person to buy a presidency is the issue....Whosever that might be.

    Allowing DJT to buy a presidency was like allowing a barber to become a brain surgeon.

    And at least HRC could string a coherent statement together.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Allowing an incompetent person to buy a presidency is the issue....Whosever that might be.

    Are you saying HRC is incompetent?

    She certainly tried to buy it two to one.

    And at least HRC could string a coherent statement together.

    Too bad competent people cannot purchase the election then.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Greyparrot
    Hence the need for proper presidential qualifications.

    Now Donald you mustn't press the red button....D'oh.