Total posts: 5,890
-->
@cristo71
Wrong. Just wrong… Already, your alleged “quote” below of what I said is missing my words in parentheses (which I included for a reason):
And I took it out for a reason; because it was either irrelevant or it was ridiculous
Here is your quote I removed:
“he is not joking about ending our democracy; he is joking about the GOP garnering such a large part of the electorate that many (such as the people at this particular rally) can stay home on Election Day in 2028, and a win will still be assured.”
You either believe Trump's statements were directed only to the audience physically in attendance or you believe he was speaking to the wider national audience.
If it's the latter, then this quote is merely intended as an example, so it is irrelevant to the substance of the message.
If you believe he was speaking only to the audience in front of him, then that is ridiculous on its face - no politician gives a speech to a crowd on camera without intending for that message to reach a wider audience.
Also, your phrase “their positions” looks, “to any rational person” who understands basic English, as though it is referring to the “Christian base.”
No, it doesn't. "Their positions" in the context of whether any particular group should go out and vote is clearly talking about the positions of the people whose names are on the ballot.
Why would the Christain base's positions being popular lead one to think the Christain base doesn't need to vote? That makes absolutely no sense.
I never referred to the Christian base in its entirety as you have assumed, just the crowd at this particular summit.
And I already explained to you that I pointed out the Christian base specifically because that's who Trump was clearly talking too, as evidence by the fact that he called them out specifically 4 times within the 25 seconds period in question.
"And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore. My beautiful Christians, I love you Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you. Get out, you got to get out and vote. In four years you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to get out and vote.”
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'll give you the chatgpt response
The chatgpt response is essentially that Vladimir Putin isn't an Omnipresent god who makes every single decision and directly controls every outcome within the country. Yeah, no shit Sherlock.
The best point they made to defend your position is the part about the legal framework. But that is hardly a meaningful point when anyone who opposes Putin's interests understands that they might suddenly find themselves accidentally falling out of a window.
There is one other part I think fits nicely into the conversation:
- Military and Security Forces: Although loyal, these forces have their own hierarchies and interests. Ensuring their loyalty often involves concessions and careful management, which can constrain absolute control.
This response you've provided along with this entire conversation is essentially you trying to argue that Putin is not a dictator with this being one of the reasons, and yet this describes exactly how dictatorships work. Rulling over millions of people cannot be accomplished without accomplices, and those accomplices will always pose a threat to the leader. That's why they value loyalty over competence (sound familiar?).
The fact that Putin has to work to maintain his power is exactly how it works. Providing this is part of the reason you don't think he's a dictator and by extension that Trump won't be a dictator highlights the problem here: you have an incredibly childish view of how these things work.
When we say Trump will be a dictator you seem to think that means the constitution will no longer exist, or that he'll just tell Congress to go home and they'll all leave and never come back. That's not how modern dictatorships work. They rule under a framework of legitimacy while making it clear to everyone how it really works.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the fact Putin has to work so hard to maintain his power is exactly why he hates the US and why he wants Trump back in the oval office. The biggest threat to him is that his people will want democracy and rebel, which looking at countries like the US inspires. Everytime Trump cultists claim the election was stolen they're feeding into the very narrative Putin dreamed of when he launched his campaign to get Trump elected. He wants our democracy to crumble to make his people feel that much more hopeless, that's why he wants Trump back in. And you and everyone else voting for him is helping him achieve it.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Commence with the gaslighting.
It's not gaslighting, it's English.
For easy reference here they both are in their entirety:
Exhibit A:
[1] he is joking about [2] the GOP [3] garnering such a large part of the electorate [4] that many can stay home on Election Day in 2028, [5] and a win will still be assured.”
Exhibit B:
[1] he's joking about [4] his christian base not having to vote anymore because [2] their positions [3] will be so popular [5] it won't matter.
Now let's put them side by side:
[1A] he is joking about
[1B] he's joking about
[2A] the GOP
[2B] their positions
[3A] garnering such a large part of the electorate
[3B] will be so popular
[4A] that many can stay home on Election Day in 2028
[4B] his christian base not having to vote anymore because
[5A] and a win will still be assured
[5B] it won't matter
Again, the only piece of these two statements that is remotely different is that you were talking about "the GOP" being popular while I was talking about "their positions" (meaning that of the GOP's) being popular - a meaningless distinction. Every other piece means the exact same thing.
So please, enlighten me as to what is so different that my TDS won't allow me to see.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Wonder why such a big deficit in 2020… weird…
Probably has something to do with that check I got in the mail that Trump made sure to put his name on.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Now really, how DID you manage to turn my explanation here:“he is not joking about ending our democracy; he is joking about the GOP garnering such a large part of the electorate that many (such as the people at this particular rally) can stay home on Election Day in 2028, and a win will still be assured.”Into your misinterpretation here:The prevailing narrative you and others are trying to offer is that he's joking about his christian base not having to vote anymore because their positions will be so popular it won't matter.
They're saying the exact same thing.
The only thing I added was the fact that he was talking about the Christian base, which is not debatable, it's a fact. In the 25 seconds clip in question he said "Christian" 4 times.
Other than that the next biggest difference is that you said "the GOP" and I said "their positions".
Do you want me to go sentence fragment by sentence fragment to elaborate on how these two statements are functionally saying the exact same thing?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again what's your point? Russia is run by oligarchs, not one man.
So you're telling me Vladimir Putin does not Jane fill and complete control over what happens within the country? Answer directly. Does he or does he not?
You obviously slept right through the entire summer of love/riots.
Andv what do you think those riots were all about?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Russia is run by oligarchs, so what's your point?
My point is that to claim it is impossible because of how our system of government was set up demonstrates a remarkable ignorance with regards to how government and human nature works.
Russia is an example because they have a system that on paper prevents a dictatorship. The problem is that the people of that country did not have the reverence for democracy that the US has/had. That is what Vladimir Putin was able to take advantage of as he gained power by corrupting the people who were supposed to uphold the country's system of government. That system is now just window dressing because of it.
Once people start to see their system of government erode they become fearful. Once people become fearful they go into self preservation mode. Once they go into self preservation mode they abandon their responsibility to preserve the system. Once they do that, there is no longer a system.
What has prevented this from happening here is our collective commitment to democracy, the very thing Trump is actively eroding (just look at ADOL's routine comments which you often cosign). Unlike 2016 he has a serious movement behind him, just look at project 2025. That's the fertile ground every aspiring dictator needs.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Your above questions is based upon a misunderstanding of what Trump is joking about. In this case, (you know, your actual OP) it’s not even a joke about being a dictator. You are not parsing his meaning correctly; you refuse to be open to a different (and correct) interpretation
I am open to any interpretation which makes sense. Simply telling me what you think he was saying while ignoring the undisputable reality of who this man has shown himself to be is insufficient to any rational person.
Let's try this; do you deny that Trump has on multiple occasions, expressed admiration for various dictators specifically for how strongly they are able to rule over their country?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it interesting that the very people that fail basic civics on how government works also believes dictatorship of a single person could happen in a country with 3 separate and independent branches. Oligarchy, maybe. Dictatorship, impossible,
Forget civics, you need a basic lesson in human nature. Democracy doesn't enforce itself. Russia had checks and balances too. To believe it's impossible to happen here is to fundamentally misunderstand what government is.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
confusing Trump’s facetiousness for “wannabe dictator” inclinations is a symptom of what is popularly known as TDS.
When President Xi of China successfully got their constitution amended so that he could effectively be president for life Trump's response was to joke by saying "maybe we should give that a try".
When he was asked whether he planned to abuse his power and be a dictator his response was to joke about how he was only going to be a dictator "on day one".
Now he tells a crowd that this will be the last time they'll ever have to vote and you guys say he's "just being facetious".
Oh, and here's a video Trump himself tweeted depicting himself running for president "4EVA"
Does it ever give you pause that the guy you support for president loves to joke about being a dictator? As in the very thing the country he is running to lead was founded against? As in the thing he has to swear not to be in order to take office?
The fact that you guys brush this off like it's nothing serious is dumbfounding. It's like a babysitter joking about touching your child. Let me guess, they were just being facetious too right?
But what's worse is the way you guys act like we're the crazy ones for ringing the alarm bells about this. As if this same man hasn't demonstrated repeatedly to us just how in love he is with dictators, and the fact that the very thing he loves about them is that they are dictators. As if we haven't already witnessed this very same man try to overturn an election. As if this same man hasn't already incited an attack against the US Capitol and watched it on TV for three hours instead of doing his job to coordinate a military response to it. As if this same man didn't already try to use the justice department to seize voting machines.
What's deranged is to ignore everything this man has shown us in as clear a way as he possibly could what he stands for and continue making excuses for him no matter how absurd those excuses are. Trump derangement syndrome is definitely real, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No. Tying someone to an action via a dubious chain reaction theory that could work in any circumstance is a not remotely the same as holding someone responsible for watching a crime in action and making a conscious decision to do nothing about it despite having both the means and responsibility to actively intervene.Oh, he had the means now? and the state of Washington and the city of Seattle didn't?
Whataboutism. If you're not going to address the point don't bother.
Civil unrest = attacking small family businesses in poor urban areas
That's generally what we see in times of civil unrest yes
Attacking the giant corrupt organization of traitors stealing half your money and trying to rule the world through military posturing
You have quite the imagination.
= "a plot"
Yes, it was a plot because it was orchastrated by one man and without that one man it would have never happened. That's the difference between January 6th and the BLM riots.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Micheal Cohen was indicted for the payment, plead guilty to it, and served 3 years for it. So legally speakingLegally speaking, there needs to be a law for there to be a crime.
There was. That's what the indictment laid out, that's what the judge signed off on, that's what Cohen plead guilty to and served 3 years for.
So again, it's not a matter of opinion whether Cohen's actions are a crime within the legal system, it's a fact.
Your ability to close your eyes plug your ears and scream "la la la" as you ignore every legal argument and just declare yourself the arbiter of what counts as the rule of law is not impressive, it's arrogant and shows yourself to be fundamentally unserious.
*Queue the "oh yeah well you're unserious" response.*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Way too many different topics to get into on this thread. If you want to narrow your question down I'll be happy to provide a thought out response.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Everyone knows it has no chance to pass, obviously the point is to get us talking about it, probably partly as a way of shifting the Overton window with the hopes of moving enough people for a chance at reform one day, but also to emphasize the contrast inn this election.
I haven't read them in detail so I can only comment right now on the basics,. It's about time we place term limits on them, this thing of nominating 40 year olds so that they remain on the court for multiple generations is not how this was intended to go. The need for ethics reform is painfully obvious, and the presidential immunity thing is absurd so definitely needs to be overturned.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, you are right. It is just a one in a billion coincidence that this was never ever on the table until Netanyahu met Trump and Trump was favored to win.
Right, because Netenyahu finally coming to the table to negotiate with the Biden administration 3 months out from the election is exactly what Trump would have wanted him to do.
Trump must really have the guy wrapped around his finger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So with all of that said just how much of a difference would that have made? Not all that much,bingo
Bingo what? Did you read a word I said after that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So when the left-tribe leadership of Washington and Seattle did nothing to stop this murder that makes them accessories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
No. Tying someone to an action via a dubious chain reaction theory that could work in any circumstance is a not remotely the same as holding someone responsible for watching a crime in action and making a conscious decision to do nothing about it despite having both the means and responsibility to actively intervene.
Nice try (not really).
The oath is to defend the constitution
The exact thing they were trying to break.
Difference between your violence and my violence is that I'm right. Yea, heard that one before; right back at ya.
I present arguments to back up mine.
Big difference.The lack of a specific time and place merely meant it went on everywhere for a long time
It also shows that this was a matter of civil unrest, not a plot orchastrated by the person who was supposedly swarn to protect against such actions.
There is no relevance in debating a point when no hard evidence exists.It comes down to credibility and you won't acknowledge that your sources are pathological liars. End of story.
Calling my sources pathological liars while your source is Trump. Oh the irony.
Assessing the credibility of the statement is far more than just your opinion of the people providing the information. It also comes down to basic logic, like recognizing that the defendant's claim contradicts his own actions over the same time period, and a basic application of Occam's razor to determine what assumptions we would have to make in order to accept his claim. Like the fact that Nancy Pelosi wasn't even in charge of organizing Capitol security in the first place, so the idea that she would turn it down instead of telling Trump to talk to the people who are actually working on that already defies logic.
Trump's story makes no sense and him lying about it is exactly what we would expect him to do.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The non-convicted, non-charged, not even against the law because the law doesn't say NDAs are illegal for candidates "federal crime"
Micheal Cohen was indicted for the payment, plead guilty to it, and served 3 years for it. So legally speaking, it is a fact that he is guilty. That by definition means the issue was adjudicated and it was a crime regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, it isn't. Not when it's done in furtherence of another crime.that's the "federal crime"
No, the furtherence of a crime is NY election law. The "illegal means" contained within NY election law could have been one of three options given to the jury, the most prominent and obvious is federal law which had already been adjudicated.
So no, he was not charged with a federal crime and to claim that using a federal charge as the underlying crime is the same thing shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of the law applied here.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
what is wrong with Israel finishing the job of eliminating the threat of terrorism?
What's wrong is that they're not just killing the terrorists.
That is of course besides the point. Regardless of what you believe when it comes to what Israel is doing or how Biden had handled it, Donald Trump is objectively better for Israel from Israel's point of view since unlike Biden, Trump has only expressed full support for Israel to continue doing exactly what they've been doing even as they've drawn global commendation for it.
You claimed Israel is only talking about a cease fire now because they think Trump will be president. That flies completely in the face of any reasonable real world understanding of the situation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Immigration Act of 1990 was a significant update to the Immigration and Nationality Act. It increased legal immigration limits, revised the grounds for deportation, and introduced the Diversity Visa Lottery. Joe Biden, serving as a senator at the time, supported immigration reform efforts during that period.
So which part is he not enforcing?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, you have one side that lies and says "the border is secure"And the other side that lies and says "we will fix the border"One of those sides is going to win the election. All the Democrats had to do was pick the correct lie.
The whole point of having these conversations is supposed to be to discern fact from fiction, and reasoned argument from BS.
One of the ways a person can tell when someone is just not interested in that is when faced with legitimate points always seem to find their way to one form or another of "oh yeah, well people say I'm right".
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
He was charged for falsifying his business records, that's a state crimeand a misdemeanor
No, it isn't. Not when it's done in furtherence of another crime.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
State laws that charge you for federal crimes should be removed just as surely as Jim Crow.
He was charged for falsifying his business records, that's a state crime
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is such a meaningless talking point. If the toughest bill in the history of the USA passes and nobody enforces it as we refuse to enforce existing law now, then it's just a political scam for votes and power.
Claiming it's a meaningless talking point with a meaningless talking point.
Even if you could provide some anecdotal example of a law the Biden administration is not enforcing, that doesn't justify the belief that the Biden administration would not enforce the law they themselves called for, negotiated and supported.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you're either an idiot who wants anarchy, or you're a traitor who want an angry minority to have the power to overthrow the laws created by the people.
He doesn't recognize anyone on the left as people.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So he these deals that are happening in the final months of Biden's presidency and only after world leaders open up to talking to Trump are happening because of Biden?
Setting aside the ridiculoisness of presuming without any evidence that world leaders are suddenly ready to come to the table because of the prospect of a Trump presidency that wouldn't even start for another 6 months...
The idea that either of these countries is somehow scared of a Trump administration is just plain stupid. Trump's entire foreign policy ethos is to stay out of the world's affairs, the very thing Russia wants. He's campaigned on not funding Ukraine and even said (yes, out loud) that if our NATO allies don't "pay up" that he would "tell Russia to do whatever the hell it wants".
And with regards to Israel, Trump is attacking anyone who shows any sympathy for the people in Gaza branding them as being terrorist supporters. He said publicly that he wants Israel to "finish the job".
So both of these countries are cheering on the prospect of another Trump presidency because they think it will let them do whatever they want. To claim they are suddenly talking because they're scared of Trump is the epitomy of partisan hackery.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
The point remains: talking shit (and his supporters know he is doing this) does not equal dictator.
In a literal sense, no of course not. The question is how should we take him? The answer: we base it on what he's telling and showing us.
You: “As usual, completely making shit up.”But then your question to me implied that you regressed back to misunderstanding.
It wasn't a regression to misunderstanding, it was a dismissal of a completely unsupported and unjustified interpretation so blatant it didn't warrant a thought out response.
The prevailing narrative you and others are trying to offer is that he's joking about his christian base not having to vote anymore because their positions will be so popular it won't matter. So if you're being serious let's look at it seriously.
First, the idea that this was a joke in and if itself doesn't pass the sniff test. This came in the context of him telling them how important it is that they vote or they won't have a country anymore. That's an odd point to throw in a joke, and nothing about his tone made it obvious that he was not being serious.
Second, the idea that christians won't have to vote to get what they want is beyond stupid. Christians aren't just a portion of the republican vote, they are the republican vote. There is no world in which them staying home and attaining power makes no sense at all.
Third, even Trump is not stupid enough to think he is going to do such a great job that the entire country will rally around him. His ire is with the evil democrats, he knows they'll be there in the next election. Partisan politics isn't going anywhere.
Maybe in 2016 you could have gotten away with calling this a joke by suggesting Trump really is that stupid to think this made enough sense to be funny, like when he said he was going to wipe out the debt in 8 years. But by this point he definitely does know better.
Humor doesn't work unless it's based on at least some semblance of truth, this is why no one makes fat jokes about skinny people, or why jokes about Biden's cognitive state were funny and yet no one is trying them on Harris. The only way you could hear Trump saying this and interpret it as the joke you offer up is to accept that Trump is so cognitively impaired that he cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality, which is an odd thing to accept in the person you plan to vote for.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Having some level of border security.
Democrats already stand behind the toughest border bill in our lifetimes. Trump is the only person opposing it.
Abortion in states hands so people can self govern,
Deeply unpopular position not to mention nonsensical BS, but you're entitled to it
guns being legal but with sensible restrictions.
That's the democrats position, not Trump's
Using some form of protectionism so American workers are protected.
That's describes the democrats position, not Trump's
You can also see that Israel as soon as Trump was favored to win is now talking about seize fires and Ukraine and Russia are ready to stop the bloodshed and negotiate if he is elected.
lol so Trump gets credit for things the Biden administration is working out. If the left did this you'd be screaming TDS.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Dictators famously plan to step down from office in the exact time period that the constitutional order demands.
He didn't plan to step down, he was forced out after his attempt to remain in power failed. Did you miss that?
And unlike in 2020 he won't make the same mistakes again, namely, he will not have career civil servants in place that will push back against his authoritarian instincts. He's already replaced Mike Pence - someone who I despise politically but at least values the constitution above Trump - with a Trump sycophant whose only qualification for VP is that he is a Trump sycophant who has said he would not have certified the election of he were the VP on January 6th.
That's only the first hire. A second Trump term will result in the gutting of the federal government of anyone who serves the constitution and replace them with those who serve Trump. Let's see how easily he'll get forced out the second time once he has turned the entire executive branch into his own personal task force.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
You misunderstand what he is being facetious about— he is not joking about ending our democracy; he is joking about the GOP garnering such a large part of the electorate that many (such as the people at this particular rally) can stay home on Election Day in 2028, and a win will still be assured.
This makes absolutely no sense and ignores all discernable reality. But I guess that's the beauty of Trump - we're so used to him saying such ridiculous things that we get to reinterpret his words to mean whatever we want and it will always make sense because him not making sense is already assumed.
How convenient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?Inaction doesn't assist.
It absolutely does when you are directly responsible for intervening.
A security guard who purposefully looks the other way while shop lifters rob the store is assisting the shoplifters. If a person is drowning right in front of you and you watch them down without making any attempt to help them or get them help you can be charged for homicide.
Trump was the president, he is directly responsible for intervening in the event we have an attack of the US Capitol and the authorization to intervene starts with him. If any of our other 44 (now 45) presidents were in office they would have intervened, Trump is the only one that wouldn't have and didn't. That is absolutely assisting them.
It wasn't a take on you individually".... and goes to show why folks like yourself have no coherent argument here, you...."
Read again.
The BLM riots were the close call with the left-tribe, Jan 6 was the close call with the right-tribe.
Apples to orange comparison. The BLM riots was a violent response to violence, January 6th was a violent response to bullshit conspiracy theories that were adjudicated and disproven. The BLM riots was a grass roots rising, January 6th came straight from the president. The goal of the BLM riots was to stop the unlawful killing of black people. The goal of the January 6th rioters was to stop the certification of the president, an effective attempt to overturn American democracy.
They're not the same.
In both cases leaders used incendiary rhetoric (left-tribe still worse, I'll bring out the compilation if you deny it).
Not one single BLM rioter was out there because Maxine Waters told them to be. No January 6th rioter would have been there if Trump did not tell them to be. Big difference.
3) The offer was never madeand they just couldn't find enough security in the whole wide world... poor them.
Irrelevant to the fact that the offer was never made. Trump is lying as usual, the question is why? The answer is obvious: because the truth is too damming to admit, and lying will always work for him because he will always have people like you pretending his lies have merit.
The fact that the US Capitol was under attack for three hours and the only evidence you have that he did anything at all during those three hours is a tweet... tells me everything I need to know.Good, then you have your answers. Thread succeeded.
It did.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
One of the symptoms of TDS is an inability to discern when Trump is being facetious.
Does it not give you pause that the guy you support to be the President of the United States feels the need to "be facetious" about whether the country he is running to lead will remain a democracy beyond his reelection?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
He is talking about doing such a great job that it will make most people republican when they see all the good he has done for the country.
As usual, completely making shit up.
Created:
And for those who will claim these comments were taken out of context...
Starts at about 1:00:40
Created:
“You won’t have to do it anymore — four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore,” the former president told the crowd at the Believers Summit, a faith-focused event in Florida.
“You’ve got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”
What excuses will Trump supporters offer for this one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah, that pretty much sums up our entire conversation. When I accuse Trump of inciting and then allowing the attack on the Capitol your answer is essentially "no he didn't, but it's good that he did".That does not describe the context of the above response in the slightest.
It does though. You have certainly argued he didn't incite the riot while also arguing that the riots were a good thing and expressing that your gripe about Trump is that he didn't go far enough, which means he did go in that direction and you like that. So yeah, it wasn't intended to be a literal take but it's pretty damn close.
you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6thI never said that, in fact I said things that directly contradict that statement.
Do you or do you not support the rioters? Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?
while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.No sane person could believe that I censor my opinions based on what the majority of the country does or does not want.
It wasn't a take on you individually, it was a generalization about the political right. Part of my point was that the republican party is not as explicit as you are because if they were the democrats would run the table in November.
No I don't know that. Notice "don't" not "didn't", because it's still the case.
And yet your defense was predicated on that premise, otherwise you would not be pretending that Trump (allegedly) offering troops to Nancy Pelosi shows that he was really trying to do something.
Did you see the video of Pelosi admitting responsibility?
Yes, it's insane how you guys use that to warp reality. She literally said in the video that she didn't know why they didn't have more security there, so smoking gun that is not. When she said she took responsibility she was clearly speaking in the context of them not being prepared saying they should have been, meaning she should Jane involved herself and not expected that they would know what they are doing.
This is basic leadership (something Trump does not have) - the basic instinct to say 'I could have done more' instead of jumping to and ending with 'wow those people suck and it's in no way my fault'.
Completely and totally made up.There are only two other explanations:1.) She refused because she wanted violence (for optics)2.) She refused because she didn't see a threatTake your pick
I'll go with
3) The offer was never made, it was made up by Trump after the fact as an excuse to pretend he was so concerned about Capitol security with no regard for logical consistency (cutting against the fact that he held the rally anyway and unleashed them on the Capitol).
The tweet? The fact that he and the secret service agree he wanted to go to the capitol?
He wanted to go to the Capitol to inspire the riotets, not stop them.
The fact that the US Capitol was under attack for three hours and the only evidence you have that he did anything at all during those three hours is a tweet... tells me everything I need to know.
I should have started with that and not bothered to write anything else.
This is the most pathetic excuse for a president I have ever seen. I suppose when I ask you what Trump's plan is to stop the war in Ukraine or Gaza you'll tell me he'll stop that with his Twitter account as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what do you think trump should have done to magically fix the situation ?
You're appealing to the same fallacious idea that ADOL tried.
No one is claiming Trump was magic. It's as clear by this point as it was in real time that many if not most of the rioters were there because they believed Trump wanted them to be there, so if he had posted a real commendation on Twitter by telling them not just "be peaceful" but adding that they were wrong to be there in the first place and to leave immediately (all common sense at the time) that would have gone a long way towards letting them know their actions would not be defended and many would have left then. A video address should have also followed minutes later, not 3 hours later.
In addition he should have been on the phone with the national guard and other defense officials giving them the approval they needed to mount an immediate response. We know from the testimonies which followed that the military response was severely delayed because high ranking officials within the administration could not get the approvals they needed, because everyone was waiting on the green light from the president, because that's how our government works.
So with all of that said just how much of a difference would that have made? Not all that much, most of the damage would have been done by that point so we would be talking only in terms of scale rather than kind. But again, the point here was never that Trump *at that point* could have stopped the whole thing, the point of this thread is to question what his purposeful inaction says about him and what his intentions were, and how that informs us about whether he has any business whatsoever near the oval office again.
So once again, up until those 187 minutes you can argue that Trump didn't intend this and that the rioters got the wrong idea, but Trump's inaction for three hours while the Capitol was under attack blows that myth out of the water. You cannot claim he was against what the rioters were doing when he actively refused to do his job in order to give them space to keep doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think jan6 was a bigger deal than oct7 ?
In some ways yes, in some ways no.
Oct 7 was a far more tragic day. Jan 6th was far worse when it came to the historical significance of what we just witnessed and what it meant for the future of the nation.
To put it differently, Oct 7th was an attack on people from the outside, Jan 6th was an attack from the inside on our very way of life and it was lead by the person we entrusted to protect it.
Still don't know what your post has to do with anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
She just became the nominee a few days ago so it's not like she would have an entire policy platform ironed out, which seems to be what you're asking for and branding anything else as useless.
Individual policies at a time when the difference between the two candidates couldn't be any greater is kind of pointless to focus on. When the opponent is a fascist dictator wannabe, a pathological liar and a downright moron who's political strength is the ability to make us hate each other, all I'm looking for is anyone who is nominally qualified and believes in the basic principals of the constitution. Harris is definitely that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Elon Musk Supports Palestine. Same with Putin. Zelenski supports Israel; maybe the left can stop funding Ukraine from that if they are going to be so pro Palestine.
For someone who spends so much time preaching about 'thinking for yourself' you sure seem to be projecting the opposite.
Do you really think the lefts "pro Palestine" position comes from what a couple of high profile dudes said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You can't have it both ways.Yes I can (again).
Yeah, that pretty much sums up our entire conversation. When I accuse Trump of inciting and then allowing the attack on the Capitol your answer is essentially "no he didn't, but it's good that he did".
It speaks to the absurdity of the political right on this and goes to show why folks like yourself have no coherent argument here, you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6th while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.
You don't send in 10,000 troops to deal with a few crazies.That's what Pelosi thought.
You do know that Nancy Pelosi was not in charge of Capitol security and had no authority to refuse national guard assistance right?
This is what happens when we elect a pathological liar and a complete moron to be our president. He just says things and then for half the country it becomes the truth no matter how easily disprovable.
In fact the reason Pelosi and goons refused is because they thought he would execute a military coup with the troops he sent to help
Completely and totally made up.
He wasn't idle for three hours
Do you have any evidence to back that up? No, of course you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I just wanted say that what has been pushed down the liberal's throat for years turned out to be a lie (Biden's mental health) and liberals should be the ones embarrassed for ever repeating that one, but they are not. So I will not be either. Nobody cares for the other side and I'm starting to see why.
You're the only one invoking sides here. Wylted presented what I found to be a ridiculous conspiracy theory so I asked if he would be embarrassed after being proven wrong again (he's bought into these many times before). There was no connection or meaningful comparison from there to Joe Biden's cognitive state as seen by liberals, so you're the only one here feeding into our political divisions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The plan of the elite was to have a convention and the super delegates take advantage of the situation to put up some establishment hack that could at least have a chance against Trump
Ah yes, "the elite". A perfect nefarious term that means absolutely nothing while sounding like your saying something meaningful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
This country is so divided and full of anger that we are going to explode soon. I recommend we all pick a side that would win in a civil war. One side will gain power and try to push the other side out.Jan 6 was a near pre-curser to that. If they had not tried to play by the rules like good Americans, then we may have a better country now. They should have just destroyed everything like BLM and it would have been a good thing, but unfortunately conservatives believe in life and the value of God, country and family. I could only think of a handful of politicians that would be worth saving, on either side. Wipe them out and start over again.Screw all you liberals for drinking the media kool-aide and driving our country to go to pot. Screw the corrupt politicians for not holding up a moral standard and making our debt how it is.I hope Trump gets into office and breaks everything.
This is the most incoherent rant I've seen on this site in quite a while. What is your message here? Are you upset that the country is angry and divided? If so, at who? Why do you think that is? Are you for it or against it since you expressed your desire for Trump to get on there and wreck everything (as if destroying a country's political system has ever been a recipe for success, have you already forgotten Iraq)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
You want us to be embarrassed after the liberals drank the "Joe Biden is the best he's ever been" Kool-aide?
I know of no one on the left claiming Joe Biden was the "best he's ever been" so right off the bat you're lying in order to make these two things appear similar. If your position was legitimate you wouldn't need to.
As far as the wide ranging views on the left of just how sharp and capable Joe Biden is, that is a matter of opinion. What not an opinion is whether he's dead and when you allege that someone is actually dead and there's a massive conspiracy going on to cover it all up you'd better have damn good evidence to support that. There was none.
These two different "theories" couldn't possibly be further apart.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol no. Prices are 20% more than 2016, so inflation is not "down"The inflation rate may be going down
Inflation is a rate genius, and that rate is already back down to where economists widely agree to be it's optimal rate. And we did it without needing Trump to save the day.
the damage was already done when prices went up 20% over 4 years, and yearly inflation is still around 3% for 2024
The fact that inflation was very high at the beginning of Biden's term and is back down to normal now without any meaningful change in policy proves the point - that inflation was caused by the aftermath of COVID (not Biden's policies) and now that we're passed having to clean up it's mess, inflation along with it is behind us.
Blaming Biden for something that was beyond his control no matter how transparent and therefore wouldn't have mattered who was president is the height of partisan hackery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't need evidence.One person at least pretends to care about the problem and the other pretends it is not a problem or at least not HIS problem.
So your claim is unsupported BS and you're just putting your support behind the person who makes you feel better about it. Copy.
Trump isn't pretending to care about the problem, if that were the case he would be out there talking about his plans to fix it. He's has none. All he's doing is going "look, high prices = Biden bad" and all the Trumpers rejoice in their MAGA outrage high.
Again, inflation occurred all over the world and resulted from the aftermath of COVID. You guys love to pretend the crisis began on January 1st 2020 and ended on January 20th 2021, but that's not how real life works.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think I'm going to vote
This always baffles me. Right now the choices are either Kamala or Trump. One of them will be your next president, the only question is whether you will have a say in that or let the rest of the country decide for you.
Created: