Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again?" If they were mad enough to vote for him once. They'd be mad enough to vote for him again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes and he is polling well  "Neither Trump nor Biden are polling particularly well. If they’re the candidates, it’ll be the ‘least unliked’ who wins. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems a global problem that, where's there's choice, there's poor choice of leadership; and where there's no choice, it's poor." But it's still "Our" choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems a global problem that, where's there's choice, there's poor choice of leadership; and where there's no choice, it's poor. But it's still "Our" choice. "I was intimating our choice is poor too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems a global problem that, where's there's choice, there's poor choice of leadership; and where there's no choice, it's poor. But it's still "Our" choice.
I was intimating our choice is poor too."lol true . It can't be any worse this administration has 2 wars.Might as well add more chaos. But you have to admit. No wars during his term. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again?" No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! " Never say never he was elected before. Guess we shall see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . He's also far ahead of all the other Republican candidates, so it could be very reasonable to see him as their candidate.
He's had success in stalling his legal trials, so could potentially escape a conviction that may prevent his running.
Without substantial amendments to the US democratic system, there's little to stop someone like him, who many of us may deem unsuitable, from becoming the President.n .
Certainly he may secure funding that sees him spending $millions on running. Biden may succumb in the eyes of voters, to massive doubt that Republican leaning media, may sow against him.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! Never say never he was elected before. Guess we shall see." I think so too. The only thing that I can see that might change people's minds is his various legal troubles. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! Never say never he was elected before. Guess we shall see. I think so too. The only thing that I can see that might change people's minds is his various legal troubles. " The Americans I talk to being a swing state and realizing that this administration is involved in 2 wars. Where there was none under Trump. It kinda makes a point to some people that this was a mistake. But I guess we shall see. It all comes down to election day. I cant predict neither can Fabio.Its up to the individual to make that decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! Never say never he was elected before. Guess we shall see. I think so too. The only thing that I can see that might change people's minds is his various legal troubles. The Americans I talk to being a swing state and realizing that this administration is involved in 2 wars. Where there was none under Trump. It kinda makes a point to some people that this was a mistake. But I guess we shall see. It all comes down to election day. I cant predict neither can Fabio.Its up to the individual to make that decision." I've no idea which way it will go. I wouldn't be surprised with either outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why would a Trump second term be surprising? Biden is the worst and weakest US President in living memory. And regrettably when the US has a weak leader the rest of the world suffers, as we can see in Ukraine and Israel. No rational person could possibly opt for a second Biden term. " Worst in living memory? Really? I remember Nixon, LBJ, Reagan, 2x Bush and of course Trump. I don't think Biden is in the running for the worst President award | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! " Latest NY Times (yes NY Times) poll has Trump ahead in virtually all key swing states. Dream on. Biden is done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! Never say never he was elected before. Guess we shall see. I think so too. The only thing that I can see that might change people's minds is his various legal troubles. The Americans I talk to being a swing state and realizing that this administration is involved in 2 wars. Where there was none under Trump. It kinda makes a point to some people that this was a mistake. But I guess we shall see. It all comes down to election day. I cant predict neither can Fabio.Its up to the individual to make that decision." You may say two wars but had Donald been in power & America was involved in neither where do you think Israel would be right about now with no aircraft carriers or American support/holding its coat. S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why would a Trump second term be surprising? Biden is the worst and weakest US President in living memory. And regrettably when the US has a weak leader the rest of the world suffers, as we can see in Ukraine and Israel. No rational person could possibly opt for a second Biden term. " I don't agree. What makes Biden the weakest President ever? Fox news? Marjorie Taylor-Green? 91 times indicted Donald J Trump? Hannity? Biden has done for America what America needed after the unstable Trump presidency. Biden did the boring shit that steadied the ship. Grew jobs. Improved the economy. Secured long standing relationships with allies damaged by Trump. Biden passed bills that improved the country like the Infrastructure and Jobs Act (opposed by the Republicans until they realised it was popular and claimed credit for it). Biden did not start the Ukraine war which Trump would have facilitated for his role model Putin. He did not start the Hamas and Israel war, but met the USA's long standing commitment to support Israel. And before you quote the Afghanistan pull out look at what Trump left Biden with after he withdrew 10,000 troops whilst the Taliban ignored the agreement and continued to fight and create an Islamic state. Biden also stopped the $15 billion Trump border wall vanity project which migrants regularly clear using $5 ladders. Least we forget, that is $15 billion of USA tax payers money as Trump could not get Mexico to pay as he promised. So Biden is not the worst or weakest president. Boring, too old perhaps, but not bad or weak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! Latest NY Times (yes NY Times) poll has Trump ahead in virtually all key swing states. Dream on. Biden is done." Just concentrate for a moment on the 6 states that trump lost to Biden in 20…. Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan Trump would have to win 4 of those 6 and hold everything he already has to win Michigan is long gone , 3 democrats in the top 3 positions statewide (the governor, Gretchen Whitimer could be a serious candidate for 28) most popular governor of any state in the country… Michigan Republican Party in disarray, the only thing that is going to scupper Biden is potentially if the Isreal Hamas war drags on as Michigan has one of the largest Arab populations in the country… but since trump’s position is the same as bidens the question is how many sit out! So… 4 of 5….. let’s deal with Arizona and Wisconsin together Arizona’s state Republican Party is probably the most MAGA far right in the nation, plus they will nominate Kari Lake as the senate nominee, Wisconsins Republican Party are trying to gerrymander so they are using what powe they have left strip any potential liberals of power to do their jobs.. including the governor and the states Supreme Court (which is voted on) Also…. Abortion rights is likely to be on the ballot in both of these states and the Republican Party in both states have very extreme positions (6 weeks.. no exceptions!) So if he loses those 3…. The pathway is the limited…. He would need somewhere like Colorado, which he lost by 10 and has nutty republicans like boebert, or New Mexico which he lost by 12, or Minnesota which he lost by 15 Georgia he will be battling his own moderate republicans, Nevada will decide on what the culinary union does in Las Vegas And that is all without where he may need to defend…. Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio could be interesting as abortion may also be on the ballot but not enough to make the difference and Florida is just Florida (the Democratic Party down there is a mess) Notice I did all of that and only mentioned Pennsylvania once….I don’t think he can win enough votes in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh Shapiro is doing a good enough job as governor to help him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.”" The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. " True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates." They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. " I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why would a Trump second term be surprising? Biden is the worst and weakest US President in living memory. And regrettably when the US has a weak leader the rest of the world suffers, as we can see in Ukraine and Israel. No rational person could possibly opt for a second Biden term. " If by worst president you mean creating more jobs than trump ever did and getting inflation back down, currently at 3.7% … (remember the uk is at 6.7%) I think most would snap your hand off! Anyway we will start to see what trump is actually like on the witness today as he is due to be on the stand in the New York trial against his business organisation for fraud (which he already lost) He basically has 3 options 1) he can decide not to take the stand…(a subpoena only covers that he has to be in court the day he is called to appear) 2) he can plead the fifth amendment to not incriminate himself 3) he can answer the questions (bearing in mind he will still be under oath so purgery rules still apply) Also.. get ready for him to say “I can’t remember/don’t recall” a lot… which if you are trying make the argument that Biden Is old and dodery.. and you are only 3 years younger… not a great look! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’" The statement said r*pe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.”" Trump has so much against him, but perhaps it's the transparency that is attractive? IE everyone knows he's a shit human being. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe" And that’s the sort of argument that trump supporters would use to continue to back their man, you’re right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe And that’s the sort of argument that trump supporters would use to continue to back their man, you’re right. " That's the point I was making. A statement naming 5 things. 1 of which is true. And with that particular one, they defintely see those indictments as a tactic of the Democrats. BTW, an indictment isn't a guilty verdict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. " Biden and the Democrats are literally tying to imprison their main opponent, an opponent who is increasingly edging ahead in the polls. But sure, Trump is a threat to democracy. It sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with you is a “threat to democracy”. That’s called “fascism”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. " The difference is, Boris knew he was lying, and it was calculated. I don't think Trump is intelligent enough to know what's going on around him to know. "Person, Man, Woman, Camera, TV". "I see disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning". "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. Biden and the Democrats are literally tying to imprison their main opponent, an opponent who is increasingly edging ahead in the polls. But sure, Trump is a threat to democracy. It sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with you is a “threat to democracy”. That’s called “fascism”." No, I’m pouting out that Trump literally has denied things that are demonstrably true, with evidence to prove them as true, whilst his supporters back his statements. I’m not sure where your little fascism rant came from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. Biden and the Democrats are literally tying to imprison their main opponent, an opponent who is increasingly edging ahead in the polls. But sure, Trump is a threat to democracy. It sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with you is a “threat to democracy”. That’s called “fascism”. No, I’m pouting out that Trump literally has denied things that are demonstrably true, with evidence to prove them as true, whilst his supporters back his statements. I’m not sure where your little fascism rant came from. " I see. So politicians you disagree with lie and politicians you agree with don’t lie. We are now starting to see in the US how spectacularly the Democrats’ strategy of demonising its opposition, calling them insurrectionists, criminals etc, is about to backfire for them. All the time while preaching “reconciliation”. But the British Left is trying to run the same playbook. “The Tories are liars and a threat to democracy”. Because the British Left are a pretty dim bunch who have zero original ideas of their own so all they can do it parrot stuff they’ve seen in the US, a country they in principle dislike, but are actually totally beholden to for their cultural policies and “strategy”. I mean Biden is a man who notoriously makes up endless stories about his own life that are demonstrably false, and we are yet to find out where all his money comes from (presumably his chums in Ukraine who are now being repaid massively by the US taxpayer for their generosity to the Biden family). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. Biden and the Democrats are literally tying to imprison their main opponent, an opponent who is increasingly edging ahead in the polls. But sure, Trump is a threat to democracy. It sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with you is a “threat to democracy”. That’s called “fascism”. No, I’m pouting out that Trump literally has denied things that are demonstrably true, with evidence to prove them as true, whilst his supporters back his statements. I’m not sure where your little fascism rant came from. I see. So politicians you disagree with lie and politicians you agree with don’t lie. We are now starting to see in the US how spectacularly the Democrats’ strategy of demonising its opposition, calling them insurrectionists, criminals etc, is about to backfire for them. All the time while preaching “reconciliation”. But the British Left is trying to run the same playbook. “The Tories are liars and a threat to democracy”. Because the British Left are a pretty dim bunch who have zero original ideas of their own so all they can do it parrot stuff they’ve seen in the US, a country they in principle dislike, but are actually totally beholden to for their cultural policies and “strategy”. I mean Biden is a man who notoriously makes up endless stories about his own life that are demonstrably false, and we are yet to find out where all his money comes from (presumably his chums in Ukraine who are now being repaid massively by the US taxpayer for their generosity to the Biden family). " Did I say politicians I agree with don’t lie? Or is that something you invented? I made a specific point about Trump and Johnson who took normal political posturing and spin to a new level - Trump’s team even invented a term - ‘Fake news’ to explain their doubling down on utter bullshit. I see that you’re not actually combatting anything that’s been said about Trump, the subject of this thread, and instead want to turn the argument towards Biden and the left. Why is that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." " Who is telling the truth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away." I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of him ending up behind bars. If he can be kept out of the Oval Office post-2024, that’ll be seen as a win. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away." I've seen all of suits. Twice  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of him ending up behind bars. If he can be kept out of the Oval Office post-2024, that’ll be seen as a win." That right there empowers Trump voters. The left is so stupid, man | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth?" Well it would be strange to pretend to be a disabled person on camera if the person wasn’t disabled, tbf. My money is the one who’s lying is the same guy who said it didn’t rain when he made his inauguration speech (it did), claimed to receive a call from the ‘head of the Boy Scouts’ abut his speech (he didn’t), claimed to have been ‘Michigan man of the year’ (never happened), didn’t know about payments to a porn star (he personally reimbursed Cohen the money) and said he got the veterans choice healthcare program passed after other presidents had failed (Obama got it passed in 2014) But maybe the disabled reporter was lying, sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Trump has done, and to a slightly lesser extent Johnson in the U.K, has made it obvious just how fragile democracy is, how easily broken it is. All it takes is for a person to stand up in the face of truth and say ‘that’s incorrect’ - even when there’s evidence proving it. Just double down and continue the lie. The whole system stops working, if you’ve enough supporters willing to collude in the lie. Biden and the Democrats are literally tying to imprison their main opponent " Nope, the courts are trying him for multiple crimes. " , an opponent who is increasingly edging ahead in the polls. But sure, Trump is a threat to democracy. " I mean, he did try to overturn the result of the election. " It sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with you is a “threat to democracy”. That’s called “fascism”." It's called, you have rewritten what's going on inside your own head and started calling randomers on a swingers website fascists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of him ending up behind bars. If he can be kept out of the Oval Office post-2024, that’ll be seen as a win. That right there empowers Trump voters. The left is so stupid, man "So we shouldn’t comment actual truths because it might empower those who are willing to overlook a bullshit artist because he’s one of them? What should people do with Trump? Ignore him? Parrot his lies? Or hold him to account? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe" Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? Well it would be strange to pretend to be a disabled person on camera if the person wasn’t disabled, tbf. My money is the one who’s lying is the same guy who said it didn’t rain when he made his inauguration speech (it did), claimed to receive a call from the ‘head of the Boy Scouts’ abut his speech (he didn’t), claimed to have been ‘Michigan man of the year’ (never happened), didn’t know about payments to a porn star (he personally reimbursed Cohen the money) and said he got the veterans choice healthcare program passed after other presidents had failed (Obama got it passed in 2014) But maybe the disabled reporter was lying, sure." So Trump did know what the fella looked like or he didn't? Or you don't actually know but chose to offer 'something to bash Trump with'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of him ending up behind bars. If he can be kept out of the Oval Office post-2024, that’ll be seen as a win. That right there empowers Trump voters. The left is so stupid, man
So we shouldn’t comment actual truths because it might empower those who are willing to overlook a bullshit artist because he’s one of them?
What should people do with Trump? Ignore him? Parrot his lies? Or hold him to account? "You've stated keeping him from presidency would be a victory. Surely, if he is guilty, the only victory is criminal charges? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead…" I'd prefer the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth?" A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted." Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? Well it would be strange to pretend to be a disabled person on camera if the person wasn’t disabled, tbf. My money is the one who’s lying is the same guy who said it didn’t rain when he made his inauguration speech (it did), claimed to receive a call from the ‘head of the Boy Scouts’ abut his speech (he didn’t), claimed to have been ‘Michigan man of the year’ (never happened), didn’t know about payments to a porn star (he personally reimbursed Cohen the money) and said he got the veterans choice healthcare program passed after other presidents had failed (Obama got it passed in 2014) But maybe the disabled reporter was lying, sure. So Trump did know what the fella looked like or he didn't? Or you don't actually know but chose to offer 'something to bash Trump with'? " Having looked into the reporters history a bit deeper today, yes I’m comfortable saying that yes, Trump knew what the reporter looked like, and mocked his disability. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities?" Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. " Trump is guilty of SA. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA." He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. " Okay… since the above is a form of sexual assault…. Can I go with civilly convicted sexual assaulter and twice impeached 4 times criminally charged former president?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world” "I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. " I didn’t make the r@pe claim, did I? I said he’s guilty of SA. You agree. Now do you agree that some supporters are willing to overlook a candidate who’s guilty of SA? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Okay… since the above is a form of sexual assault…. Can I go with civilly convicted sexual assaulter and twice impeached 4 times criminally charged former president? "You can go with whatever you like but the point is, if you don't speak the truth and go for emotive, dramatic language instead, you just further embolden his supporters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals."It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things. Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. I didn’t make the r@pe claim, did I? I said he’s guilty of SA. You agree. Now do you agree that some supporters are willing to overlook a candidate who’s guilty of SA? " You didn't make the claim, you jumped into something that had nothing to do with you with... "I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true." To say something is defintely true, when that wasn't the original claim, is quite frankly nonsense. being that my comment was on the original claim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?"You're free to come to that conclusion. Others are free to accept Trumps explanation. That doesn't make you right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. I didn’t make the r@pe claim, did I? I said he’s guilty of SA. You agree. Now do you agree that some supporters are willing to overlook a candidate who’s guilty of SA? You didn't make the claim, you jumped into something that had nothing to do with you with... "I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true." To say something is defintely true, when that wasn't the original claim, is quite frankly nonsense. being that my comment was on the original claim. " And that’s how trump supporters respond on the daily. “We’ll he’s never been find guilty of r@pe” He did sexually assault someone though “Yeah but he didn’t r@pe anyone. He’s got my vote” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?
You're free to come to that conclusion. Others are free to accept Trumps explanation.
That doesn't make you right. "I mean, I’m literally right. Denying he mocked a disabled reporter is such a ludicrous hill to die on, when there’s actual evidence of him doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. I didn’t make the r@pe claim, did I? I said he’s guilty of SA. You agree. Now do you agree that some supporters are willing to overlook a candidate who’s guilty of SA? You didn't make the claim, you jumped into something that had nothing to do with you with... "I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true." To say something is defintely true, when that wasn't the original claim, is quite frankly nonsense. being that my comment was on the original claim. And that’s how trump supporters respond on the daily. “We’ll he’s never been find guilty of r@pe” He did sexually assault someone though “Yeah but he didn’t r@pe anyone. He’s got my vote”" And the Dems continually accuse him of being guilty of r*pe. I haven't said his supporters are right, I've said the Dems are wrong in how they go about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. " The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?
You're free to come to that conclusion. Others are free to accept Trumps explanation.
That doesn't make you right.
I mean, I’m literally right. Denying he mocked a disabled reporter is such a ludicrous hill to die on, when there’s actual evidence of him doing so.
"I see you haven't changed  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA." Which covers a huge remit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! " You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?
You're free to come to that conclusion. Others are free to accept Trumps explanation.
That doesn't make you right.
I mean, I’m literally right. Denying he mocked a disabled reporter is such a ludicrous hill to die on, when there’s actual evidence of him doing so.
I see you haven't changed "Pointing out the idiocy of people denying obvious facts? You’re right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?"Prolific Liar like BOJO...clones I tell thee  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump on mocking the disabled NY Times reporter Serge Kovaleski: “I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled." Kovaleski on Trump: “"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years." Who is telling the truth? A quick bit of research reveals that Kovaleski had interviewed trump on several occasions, including on the ‘Trump shuttle’ airline (1989-1992), and in Trump’s office in the late 80’s. It seems they were at least aquatinted. Trump done an awful lot of interviews. You think he remembers every single one? I'll ask an easier question. Did Trump know the fella personally and was he aware of any disabilities? Have you seen the reporter? Serge Kovaleski. His disability is quite obvious, and he’s been around Trump on many occasions. I’m perfectly accepting that Trump would have recognised the chap. Especially since Trump himself claimed that he has “one of the best memories in the world”
I have just this minute seen him. I've also seen the video in which Trump mocks him. It didn't appear to hurt him in 2016, not sure it will now. In fact, of all the things, 2016 seems to be a good year to keep going back to for the liberals.
It’s not about hurting him, it’s about pointing out the depths of the man’s callousness and asking who would support such a character, and even deny that he’s done these things.
Trump himself claims that he never mocked the reporter. Flat-out denies it. Isn’t that ludicrous? Surely we can agree on that much?
You're free to come to that conclusion. Others are free to accept Trumps explanation.
That doesn't make you right.
I mean, I’m literally right. Denying he mocked a disabled reporter is such a ludicrous hill to die on, when there’s actual evidence of him doing so.
I see you haven't changed
Pointing out the idiocy of people denying obvious facts? You’re right. "I think you're mistaken on what you think you're doing
As I said, you don't have to believe his explanation, that doesn't entitle you to tell others what to believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. " I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? " What? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What?" You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? " You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. " What have I made up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. What have I made up? " Welcome back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. " Woah… how am I helping? I never say he is guilty of R@pe , but a lot of people lessen the fact he was found guilty of sexual assault because the R@pe allegations was found unproven… It’s what GB news and Jacob Rees mogg got in trouble for with ofcom because they inferred that being found not guilty of r@pe meant he was found not guilty of sexual assault.. which is not true He was found guilty of sexual assault from levels 1-4 on a 5 level scale…. Forcible touching without forcible penetration The uk equivalent would be him now having to be on the sex offenders register! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. What have I made up? " "You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them." You made that up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. What have I made up? "You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them." You made that up. " Oh I see, so I’ve made nothing up about Trump at all? That’s what you wanted, right? People to tell the truth about Trump. That’s what I’ve done. Am I flinging shit against the wall hoping some will stick? Or telling demonstrable truths about him? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. Woah… how am I helping? I never say he is guilty of R@pe , but a lot of people lessen the fact he was found guilty of sexual assault because the R@pe allegations was found unproven… It’s what GB news and Jacob Rees mogg got in trouble for with ofcom because they inferred that being found not guilty of r@pe meant he was found not guilty of sexual assault.. which is not true He was found guilty of sexual assault from levels 1-4 on a 5 level scale…. Forcible touching without forcible penetration The uk equivalent would be him now having to be on the sex offenders register! " Your side. The opposite side to Trump. The UK equivalent would not have him in the SO register. Why lie? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this post on Twitter and thought, yeah why is that... “Ridiculous that Biden needs to be flawless to win but Trump can literally try to overthrow Congress, kill thousands of Americans due to his COVID response, get indicted on 91 criminal counts, rap-e women, threaten humanity by ignoring the climate… and still be competitive.” The problem with statements like that is that they tend to do more good than harm for Trump. I'm not sure when people will wake and and see it. True. But it says an awful lot about his supporters if they are happy/willing to just hand wave all that away. If I was American and a Republican supporter I would be demanding better candidates. They will and can wave it away. Which parts are actually conclusively true? This is where you (not you personally) need to analyse, break it down and then come up with the truth. Trump supporters see a tactic of throwing enough shit at the wall because some will stick. It's not a good tactic. I mean his indictments and sexual assault are definitely true. But yeah, supporters will turn a blind eye because ‘they’re coming for one of us’ The statement said r*pe Fair enough… would you prefer inappropriate unsolicited sexual touching instead… I'd prefer the truth. Trump is guilty of SA. He is but that wasn't the claim, which is the whole point. You won't see it, that's why the left will never win. You literally have people (lots of them) telling you where youbgo wrong and you still won't change it. I think that's called insanity. The problem is that in New York State there are basically 5 levels of sexual assault… of which r@pe is level 5 the highest level Because trump was found not liable for R@pe they think he was not liable for sexual assault… the truth is he was found guilty for levels 1-4 of sexual assault.. just not level 5! You should have a chat with FunFella. You're both on the same side. Keep going and you may well just find Trump back in office. And as I've said about Brexit, you'll have your own side to blame for that. I ask again, as it’s not been answered yet - how do you respond to a character who’s just going to lie and double down on the lie even when there’s actual evidence of the truth? What? You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them. How should we treat him? You embolden his supporters by making things up. Don't try to twist my words. What have I made up? "You keep telling us tat we embolden Trump’s supporters by pointing out his lies to them." You made that up. Oh I see, so I’ve made nothing up about Trump at all? That’s what you wanted, right? People to tell the truth about Trump. That’s what I’ve done. Am I flinging shit against the wall hoping some will stick? Or telling demonstrable truths about him? " I said don't twist my words. Learn to read, will you. I don't keep telling you what you claimed I didnn | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts." Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless" exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless" So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? " If you're revealing truth and they won't see it, there isn't much you can do. What you don't do is mix the truth up with a load of lies or 'perspectives' and claim its all truth, it severely weakens the argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I've seen all of suits. Twice "Shhh people might think you are a fan of that avocado munching, etiquette ignoring, poor dress sense, brown American who dared in-veil herself with our beloved Royal Family! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I've seen all of suits. Twice
Shhh people might think you are a fan of that avocado munching, etiquette ignoring, poor dress sense, brown American who dared in-veil herself with our beloved Royal Family! "I thought she was very good in suits, and hot. I wanna know what Harry has thatvI don't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've seen three seasons of suit's. This means I'm basically a lawyer and know everything about the American legal system,if trump throws enough money at his problems his lawyers will make it all go away. I've seen all of suits. Twice
Shhh people might think you are a fan of that avocado munching, etiquette ignoring, poor dress sense, brown American who dared in-veil herself with our beloved Royal Family!
I thought she was very good in suits, and hot. I wanna know what Harry has thatvI don't "A very big... . . . . . Wallet and profile | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? " His SA conviction stemmed from a incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before a election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? His SA conviction stemmed from an incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before an election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. " Hasn’t Trump had several SA lawsuits filed against him, some many years before he even first ran for President? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? His SA conviction stemmed from a incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before a election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. " Do you see how you’re doing the very thing discussed in this thread? How do you feel about mocking the disabled reporter? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? His SA conviction stemmed from a incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before a election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. " In your eyes Blu, is Trump fit for office? Does he uphold and represent the standards you want and expect from your President? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? His SA conviction stemmed from a incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before a election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. In your eyes Blu, is Trump fit for office? Does he uphold and represent the standards you want and expect from your President?" As a president yes he does. No different than a Biden supporter on their standards and their wants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition." You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?" so he is no different to any other politician then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then" Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders." My west is way different than your west. Your country can choose whatever leaders they choose. Just like we can. So saying the west like we are all the same. We are not. I personally have totally different views compared to others on this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition." You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders. My west is way different than your west. Your country can choose whatever leaders they choose. Just like we can. So saying the west like we are all the same. We are not. I personally have totally different views compared to others on this thread. " Hey, if you don’t mind a head of state mocking disabled people then that’s your lookout, I guess. I think the overwhelmingly decent people of the USA deserve better than a huckster who invents easily disproved statements like being ‘Michigan’s man of the year’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders. My west is way different than your west. Your country can choose whatever leaders they choose. Just like we can. So saying the west like we are all the same. We are not. I personally have totally different views compared to others on this thread. " That's a good point. We can't even agree what British values are. Nevermind western. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders." so because trump and boris take it to another level it makes the rest of them being full of shit ok, because those two are more blatant about it? Id rather the rest of them were more blatant instead of being sneaky fuckers and pretending they are doing good for the general public | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders.so because trump and boris take it to another level it makes the rest of them being full of shit ok, because those two are more blatant about it? Id rather the rest of them were more blatant instead of being sneaky fuckers and pretending they are doing good for the general public" I’d rather all were held to the same standards of accountability, personally. Yours is a strange take. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders.so because trump and boris take it to another level it makes the rest of them being full of shit ok, because those two are more blatant about it? Id rather the rest of them were more blatant instead of being sneaky fuckers and pretending they are doing good for the general public I’d rather all were held to the same standards of accountability, personally. Yours is a strange take." why? They all lie just some are more blatant about it, your take is strange, your pissed off big time about trump and boris because there lies are so obvious but ok with others because they hide there lies better, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured…." oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?so he is no different to any other politician then Trump (and Johnson) take it to a new level, let’s be honest here. Trump denies saying and doing things that he’s literally been filmed/recorded doing. I mean if people accept him mocking the disabled and then denying it, then who am I to judge. I just think that we in the west deserve better leaders.so because trump and boris take it to another level it makes the rest of them being full of shit ok, because those two are more blatant about it? Id rather the rest of them were more blatant instead of being sneaky fuckers and pretending they are doing good for the general public I’d rather all were held to the same standards of accountability, personally. Yours is a strange take.why? They all lie just some are more blatant about it, your take is strange, your pissed off big time about trump and boris because there lies are so obvious but ok with others because they hide there lies better, " It’s not just lies though. Trump literally tried to overturn an election. He literally mocked a disabled reporter. Acceptable behaviour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician" How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? " I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician" You haven’t remembered some of the conversations that have been reported he has had in the vicinity of some of his old cabinet… general McMaster, general mattis, and his old chief of staff general Kelly…. I specifically didn’t go down the route of the disrespect he gave to John McCain … | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. " I’m not talking about soldiers, I’m talking about standards of office. Is it acceptable to publicly mock the disabled? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. I’m not talking about soldiers, I’m talking about standards of office. Is it acceptable to publicly mock the disabled?" Are you aware that politicians here mock people all the time? Should those standards apply to just him or all of them? See you are concentrating on incidents he did not what others do. He said it yes he did I have no issues with that. So basically you are appalled he said that. Well I am appalled by thousands of politicians and what they say. I don't focus on just one.They all say stupid shit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. I’m not talking about soldiers, I’m talking about standards of office. Is it acceptable to publicly mock the disabled? Are you aware that politicians here mock people all the time? Should those standards apply to just him or all of them? See you are concentrating on incidents he did not what others do. He said it yes he did I have no issues with that. So basically you are appalled he said that. Well I am appalled by thousands of politicians and what they say. I don't focus on just one.They all say stupid shit." You’re right, I am appalled by a head of state publicly mocking a disabled person, and frankly l’m gobsmacked that instead of saying simply ‘yes, he shouldn’t have done that, it was appalling’ you try to turn it on to others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? " was pointing out it was another politician _abio was trying to make it sound like he was mocking all captured soldiers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? was pointing out it was another politician _abio was trying to make it sound like he was mocking all captured soldiers" Not just captured, dead soldiers too. A quote: “When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true. Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. I’m not talking about soldiers, I’m talking about standards of office. Is it acceptable to publicly mock the disabled? Are you aware that politicians here mock people all the time? Should those standards apply to just him or all of them? See you are concentrating on incidents he did not what others do. He said it yes he did I have no issues with that. So basically you are appalled he said that. Well I am appalled by thousands of politicians and what they say. I don't focus on just one.They all say stupid shit. You’re right, I am appalled by a head of state publicly mocking a disabled person, and frankly l’m gobsmacked that instead of saying simply ‘yes, he shouldn’t have done that, it was appalling’ you try to turn it on to others. " should I be appalled by everything that comes out of Bidens mouth? Politicians say dumb shit in case you haven't noticed. I just laugh them off because it's politics as usual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician" Trump hid behind a medical condition in the very conflict he mocked McCain for being captured and tortured .. An absolute vile thing to do and for which he was rightly criticised by all sides of the political divide in America.. The likes of trump are not worthy of tying the shoes of guys who served and didn't scuttle away .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? I was a soldier so was my husband we get mocked by the left all the time. You think that really bothers us and all the ones I know? It doesn't. I had drill Sargents say much worse. I look at it as a political issue. You are looking at it as a he said issue. I’m not talking about soldiers, I’m talking about standards of office. Is it acceptable to publicly mock the disabled? Are you aware that politicians here mock people all the time? Should those standards apply to just him or all of them? See you are concentrating on incidents he did not what others do. He said it yes he did I have no issues with that. So basically you are appalled he said that. Well I am appalled by thousands of politicians and what they say. I don't focus on just one.They all say stupid shit. You’re right, I am appalled by a head of state publicly mocking a disabled person, and frankly l’m gobsmacked that instead of saying simply ‘yes, he shouldn’t have done that, it was appalling’ you try to turn it on to others. should I be appalled by everything that comes out of Bidens mouth? Politicians say dumb shit in case you haven't noticed. I just laugh them off because it's politics as usual." Just to confirm, you just laugh off Trump mocking a disabled reporter? I’m not being pedantic, I just can’t believe anyone is that callous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You know that trump famously disparaged troops in the past… didn’t want to go to ww1 memorial in France “because it was raining “ and didn’t want injured soldiers in his parade as “he didn’t want people to feel bad” as well as mocking soldiers who were captured….oh come on _abio he didnt mock soldiers who were captured he mocked ONE soldier who was captured who happend to be another politician How many soldiers is it acceptable to mock? " as many as you like, im sure soldiers have a very thick skin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our politicians sling shit at each other on local state and federal levels. It's part of American politics. Trump is just highlighted more being he was a president. People are looking at the optics of it. Not the indictments and the convictions. It is being looked at as they will do anything to not let him run and it's big government not letting the people choose their candidate. So the more they throw at him the more the optics seem to be true and the polls are reflecting those thoughts. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say. They won't see it though so I can only assume its pointless So once again, what is the answer? How do you deal with (let’s forget trump) someone who just lies, doubles down on lies, and denies lying - even in the face of evidence? What do you do when that person’s support grows even as you reveal the truth to their eyes? His SA conviction stemmed from a incident from 1996. It's a Red flag stating they are not going to do anything to not allow him to run again. Right before a election campaign. The optics are there. People are seeing that as a "Witch Hunt". After so many years why now. In your eyes Blu, is Trump fit for office? Does he uphold and represent the standards you want and expect from your President? As a president yes he does. No different than a Biden supporter on their standards and their wants." So none of his misdemeanours rule him out? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch." Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’?" I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread confirms, again, that many human beings are tribalist and politics has suffered from footballisation where all that matters to some is that their team wins, no matter the cost. Nuance in debate is dead. It is right v left, black v white no room for grey, my way v your way and no compromise. It is a sad state of affairs that for many everything has simply dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. The human race is fucked. Completely fucked." probably I asked my stock investor what I should invest in . He said can goods and ammo.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing?" Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. " What’s swamp did he drain? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. " And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. What’s swamp did he drain?" We have a similar swamp in the uk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. What’s swamp did he drain? We have a similar swamp in the uk." What swamp did Trump drain? It’s not a trick question. You made the claim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? " Yes, what you see is what you get. Those that like their politicians to pretend they’re listening, might not like Trump | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? Yes, what you see is what you get. Those that like their politicians to pretend they’re listening, might not like Trump" Trump doesn’t even pretend to listen, though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? Yes, what you see is what you get. Those that like their politicians to pretend they’re listening, might not like Trump Trump doesn’t even pretend to listen, though. " Bingo…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? Yes, what you see is what you get. Those that like their politicians to pretend they’re listening, might not like Trump Trump doesn’t even pretend to listen, though. Bingo…." Ah. And that’s a good thing….why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have got to like Trump mainly though the way people love to put him and anyone who supports him down with such hate. The hatred is fascinating, and those with the hate can't see that the majority of people are generally fed up with the lack of quality from leaders who are also afraid to speak their minds, preferring to talk around everything for fear of upsetting those voices that love to hate. Rather an interesting thing to watch. Out of interest, how do you feel about his persistence and obvious lying, and double downing on his lies? Can anyone answer this without referring to Biden or ‘the left’? I find it be brazen, you know he is lying, he knows you know he is lying and he doesn't care. Sounds familiar, looks less polished. And with those qualities you “have got to like Trump“? Yes, what you see is what you get. Those that like their politicians to pretend they’re listening, might not like Trump Trump doesn’t even pretend to listen, though. Bingo…. Ah. And that’s a good thing….why?" It is not pretence, but you won’t accept that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge." There was just as much "ammunition" last time. "Mexicans, they're r@pists". "Grab 'em by the pussy". Etc And policies designed to make poor Americans poorer, remove their access to healthcare, give tax breaks to himself. Spunk billions on a pointless wall. Etc. Didn't make a jot of difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge." And the thing is.. running against trump is the best thing for democrats, a moderate Republican probably makes the election really interesting! Think of it like when corbyn was leader of labour.. he was the best weapon for the tories, but he was never going to be the best for the country! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. What’s swamp did he drain? We have a similar swamp in the uk. What swamp did Trump drain? It’s not a trick question. You made the claim." Mr trump said he was going to drain the swamp and he started the procces, I think it was in louisiana.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge. There was just as much "ammunition" last time. "Mexicans, they're r@pists". "Grab 'em by the pussy". Etc And policies designed to make poor Americans poorer, remove their access to healthcare, give tax breaks to himself. Spunk billions on a pointless wall. Etc. Didn't make a jot of difference. " The attack ads write themselves… I’ll write a 30 second ad now This is the ad I would show in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia “This man thinks so much of you that he believes your vote shouldn’t count! He went up to the Supreme Court arguing your vote shouldn’t count!” My name is Fabio and I approve this message! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge. And the thing is.. running against trump is the best thing for democrats, a moderate Republican probably makes the election really interesting! Think of it like when corbyn was leader of labour.. he was the best weapon for the tories, but he was never going to be the best for the country! " That's exactly what I'm saying that the democrats should welcome trump being the opposition and not hinder his path towards it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge. There was just as much "ammunition" last time. "Mexicans, they're r@pists". "Grab 'em by the pussy". Etc And policies designed to make poor Americans poorer, remove their access to healthcare, give tax breaks to himself. Spunk billions on a pointless wall. Etc. Didn't make a jot of difference. " Didn't Biden win gat him as I mentioned in my post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have a whole year to enjoy the shit show. It's too far ahead to predict. But so far I have a positive outlook. # Trump 2024. "Maybe I could be better off financially and maybe we don't have to be involved in other people's wars. Because this shit show administration is definitely not my cuppa tea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! " That was exactly what every poll and ever pundit said last time around... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know were you stand with Mr trump, unlike our poppy hiding coward of an opposition. You mean you know he’s lying to you? Is that a good thing? Mr trump has never lied to me personally, what I was getting at was that, when Mr trump says he is going to do something you know he means it, swamp drainage comes to mind along with his Mr jong un 'rocket man' visit and face off. What’s swamp did he drain? We have a similar swamp in the uk. What swamp did Trump drain? It’s not a trick question. You made the claim." He didn't drain any, just like he didn't build a wall but at least he called it out for what it is and at least attempted to do something | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this a real possibility, would the American voters really want him back again? No… When you look at the polls… instead of looking at it as 1 big general election poll.. you need to look at it as 50 little ones Basically the election is going to be contested in 8-10 states Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona… and on the fringe places like New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina Now… of the first 6 I mentioned trump would need to win 4 of those 6 minimum to have a chance of winning the election Now.. in some of those states there are other issues that don’t help… in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the state Republican parties are a shambles or full of extremists… In all of those states in the 22 midterms… the republicans with trump as their de facto leader did not win 1 statewide federal election race Anyone who says yes I always ask them a really simple question…. Name me a state trump lost in 20 he wins back in 24 knowing what we now know! (That he tried to disenfranchise voters in all those states… the attack ads will write themselves!) A moderate Republican may have had a chance…… trump…. No shot! That was exactly what every poll and ever pundit said last time around..." Well then I’ll ask you the very same question I ask every else… Name me one state trump will win in 24 that he didn’t in 20 and why? It’s easy putting up the 2 line platitudes without any substance.. the traps that trump is going to have to try and traverse in the next year are far far greater than Bidens | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biden is simply too old and doddery to be the most powerful person on the planet. For the sake of everyone he needs to step down and not run. He actually is a gift to Trump and that orange buffoon could get back in seeing as nobody seems to care what he has done!" If Biden is too old.. remember that trump is only 2 and a bit years younger! Also in the last couple of set piece trump speeches he is making so many mistakes or being forgetful that desantis and haley are running them in ads against trump | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have a whole year to enjoy the shit show. It's too far ahead to predict. But so far I have a positive outlook. # Trump 2024. Maybe I could be better off financially and maybe we don't have to be involved in other people's wars. Because this shit show administration is definitely not my cuppa tea."What has the Biden administration done to make it a "shit show"? I am confused because the US economy is one if the best performing in the world. Biden dealt effectively with the pandemic, and saved the economy. He had to deal with the $3 Trillion extra borrowing Trump made so he could pay off the rich. Unemployment is down lower than other countries. The infrastructure bill is even fixing infrastructure in Republican areas. Action is being taken to make essential medicines affordable. Biden has rebuilt ties with other countries that Trump tried to destroy. However Fox News, NewsMax, Hannity etc. would have you believe it is all lies. And they should know, they are past Masters in lying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biden is simply too old and doddery to be the most powerful person on the planet. For the sake of everyone he needs to step down and not run. He actually is a gift to Trump and that orange buffoon could get back in seeing as nobody seems to care what he has done! If Biden is too old.. remember that trump is only 2 and a bit years younger! Also in the last couple of set piece trump speeches he is making so many mistakes or being forgetful that desantis and haley are running them in ads against trump " True enough but people tend to view the incumbent more harshly. IMHO nobody over 70 should be President or Prime Minister etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a complete mystery and I am certainly not a fan of trump. However I would have thought that trump running again would have been what the other side would want. There is so much ammunition they can use in an election they should be wanting him to be the candidate especially as Biden has beaten him once already. If not they will face someone with less baggage who might put up more of a challenge. There was just as much "ammunition" last time. "Mexicans, they're r@pists". "Grab 'em by the pussy". Etc And policies designed to make poor Americans poorer, remove their access to healthcare, give tax breaks to himself. Spunk billions on a pointless wall. Etc. Didn't make a jot of difference. The attack ads write themselves… I’ll write a 30 second ad now This is the ad I would show in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia “This man thinks so much of you that he believes your vote shouldn’t count! He went up to the Supreme Court arguing your vote shouldn’t count!” My name is Fabio and I approve this message! "Ha. Does that stuff work? The media portrays his supporters as being completely blind to information like this. It's all a set up or a conspiracy, like the chap above mentioned he and others think it's the democrats trying to frame him and get him out of the way before the election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have a whole year to enjoy the shit show. It's too far ahead to predict. But so far I have a positive outlook. # Trump 2024. Maybe I could be better off financially and maybe we don't have to be involved in other people's wars. Because this shit show administration is definitely not my cuppa tea.
What has the Biden administration done to make it a "shit show"? I am confused because the US economy is one if the best performing in the world.
Biden dealt effectively with the pandemic, and saved the economy. He had to deal with the $3 Trillion extra borrowing Trump made so he could pay off the rich. Unemployment is down lower than other countries. The infrastructure bill is even fixing infrastructure in Republican areas. Action is being taken to make essential medicines affordable. Biden has rebuilt ties with other countries that Trump tried to destroy.
However Fox News, NewsMax, Hannity etc. would have you believe it is all lies. And they should know, they are past Masters in lying. "If our economy is so great. Tell that to millions of Americans from both sides. You would get laughed at. The number 1 issue is the economy. People are viewing 2 things right now. More disposable income and staying out of other countries affairs. They remember no wars and a higher standard of living. It's the simple truth. People can point out what Biden has done. But when they are looking at their groceries and realizing it's way worse now. It tends to change people's minds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have a whole year to enjoy the shit show. It's too far ahead to predict. But so far I have a positive outlook. # Trump 2024. Maybe I could be better off financially and maybe we don't have to be involved in other people's wars. Because this shit show administration is definitely not my cuppa tea.
What has the Biden administration done to make it a "shit show"? I am confused because the US economy is one if the best performing in the world.
Biden dealt effectively with the pandemic, and saved the economy. He had to deal with the $3 Trillion extra borrowing Trump made so he could pay off the rich. Unemployment is down lower than other countries. The infrastructure bill is even fixing infrastructure in Republican areas. Action is being taken to make essential medicines affordable. Biden has rebuilt ties with other countries that Trump tried to destroy.
However Fox News, NewsMax, Hannity etc. would have you believe it is all lies. And they should know, they are past Masters in lying. If our economy is so great. Tell that to millions of Americans from both sides. You would get laughed at. The number 1 issue is the economy. People are viewing 2 things right now. More disposable income and staying out of other countries affairs. They remember no wars and a higher standard of living. It's the simple truth. People can point out what Biden has done. But when they are looking at their groceries and realizing it's way worse now. It tends to change people's minds."Blu that may well be the case but until the power of the military industrial complex and it's hold on the higher political echelons of both sides of the divide and the idea that letting other Empires inevitably emerge it'll be a while yet till the mindset of the legislature changes.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states K" Did the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election." Btw did you see what fetterman said? That was Epic a true Pennylvainian.I laughed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election." That’s okay blu… don’t touch the 3rd rail…
As much as the republicans are going to run on the economy (and the government shutdown that we all know is coming at some point) the democrats are going to run on women’s rights and civil rights
So.. that national abortion ban a lot of your republican presidential candidates platform is running on….any comment?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election. That’s okay blu… don’t touch the 3rd rail…
As much as the republicans are going to run on the economy (and the government shutdown that we all know is coming at some point) the democrats are going to run on women’s rights and civil rights
So.. that national abortion ban a lot of your republican presidential candidates platform is running on….any comment?
"Sure like I said . State rights. You see how voting for it or against is working. In a red state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election. That’s okay blu… don’t touch the 3rd rail…
As much as the republicans are going to run on the economy (and the government shutdown that we all know is coming at some point) the democrats are going to run on women’s rights and civil rights
So.. that national abortion ban a lot of your republican presidential candidates platform is running on….any comment?
Sure like I said . State rights. You see how voting for it or against is working. In a red state. "Now Ohio can amend thier constitution to suit what the people voted for in their state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election. That’s okay blu… don’t touch the 3rd rail…
As much as the republicans are going to run on the economy (and the government shutdown that we all know is coming at some point) the democrats are going to run on women’s rights and civil rights
So.. that national abortion ban a lot of your republican presidential candidates platform is running on….any comment?
Sure like I said . State rights. You see how voting for it or against is working. In a red state. Now Ohio can amend thier constitution to suit what the people voted for in their state."So to be clear you prefer the federal government to override state rights. It's a preference of yours. Mine is I want states to decide their rights and I am the bad person in your eyes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting set of of year election results last night in various different states….and 1 topic looks like it’s going to be a serious issue Abortion rights…. Ohio voters voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the republicans governor and his party had campaigned against it (the governor of Ohio is really moderate so it’s an interesting position) Ohio leans red these days… In deep red Kentucky, the democratic governor beat his Republican opponent running on the promise of putting abortion rights on the ballot (basically the same measure that passed in Ohio) In Virginia, where they off year elections statewide, the republican governor tried to get the state party around a position of 15 weeks with exceptions.. failed… democrats not on retain majority in the house (they only did that for the 1st in 50 years in the off year elections in 21) but now have a majority in the senate In blu’s home state of Pennsylvania… the republicans lost a seat on the state Supreme Court to a democratic challenger running on maintaining abortion rights…. Abortion rights have become the 3rd rail issue for the Republican Party … So how does this relate to trump… blu will say it’s a state’s issue! Well… trump takes credit and likes to run victory laps on the fact he put 3 people on SCOTUS primarily to eliminate roe vs wade… Abortion rights are very likely to be on the election ballot next year in a lot of places… Arizona, Wisconsin and likely Florida… places that trump needs to win in 24 It’s a need he will need to thread very carefully because pro lifers want a national ban in line with the most extreme states KDid the supreme courts decision where they said it's up to the states to decide work as it is intended to do? State Judges really don't matter being red or blue they are bound by the laws that are on the books.They don't make the laws. Municipal and state election turnouts are notoriously low turnouts. It's not a presidential election. That’s okay blu… don’t touch the 3rd rail…
As much as the republicans are going to run on the economy (and the government shutdown that we all know is coming at some point) the democrats are going to run on women’s rights and civil rights
So.. that national abortion ban a lot of your republican presidential candidates platform is running on….any comment?
Sure like I said . State rights. You see how voting for it or against is working. In a red state. Now Ohio can amend thier constitution to suit what the people voted for in their state. So to be clear you prefer the federal government to override state rights. It's a preference of yours. Mine is I want states to decide their rights and I am the bad person in your eyes."Sorry to burst your bubble. Yay Ohio voted like they should and won. Good for them. I been saying that since the courts ruling. Kick back to the states to decide. What people want in one state is not necessarily the same in another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
