|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I fully expect the SC to allow Trump because the President is not listed as being an officer of the United States.
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 20 2023 08:56 Gorsameth wrote:I fully expect the SC to allow Trump because the President is not listed as being an officer of the United States.
I fully expect them to allow it because they’re bought and paid for.
|
|
|
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him.
|
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence).
|
United States43611 Posts
Doesn’t seem like it’ll make a difference. Constitutionally speaking the states are entitled to run their elections as they see fit. However the states don’t elect the president, they elect electors. There’s no reason why their electors couldn’t subsequently vote Trump.
Also he absolutely should be disqualified for his attempted coup. That’s obvious to everyone not currently riding Trump’s dick. He was justifiably impeached twice and his own party were, at the time of his coup, only arguing against removal from office on the grounds that he was already voted out.
They’ve come around on him because he remains popular and they’re weak bitches with no spines but it doesn’t change what he did.
|
|
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence).
Russiagate absolutely didn’t work as intended. Trump demanded a personal pledge of loyalty to him over the constitution and when he didn’t get it he fired the guy. Trump appointed a new guy who, in his job application, argued that the DoJ should never recommend charges against a sitting president.
Mueller produced a report that specifically stated “does not exonerate” but instead of publishing it he turned it over to Trump’s team who immediately announced that it fully exonerated him. The narrative was established and the DoJ never disputed it. The DoJ were ordered to punt it to the legislative and the Republican legislative refused to do anything without a DoJ indictment.
It was a mockery of the system.
He literally did all the things he’s being charged with, and much more to boot. There’s a reason literally all of his coconspirators have already plead guilty.
|
On December 20 2023 10:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). Russiagate absolutely didn’t work as intended. Trump demanded a personal pledge of loyalty to him over the constitution and when he didn’t get it he fired the guy. Trump appointed a new guy who, in his job application, argued that the DoJ should never recommend charges against a sitting president. Mueller produced a report that specifically stated “does not exonerate” but instead of publishing it he turned it over to Trump’s team who immediately announced that it fully exonerated him. The narrative was established and the DoJ never disputed it. The DoJ were ordered to punt it to the legislative and the Republican legislative refused to do anything without a DoJ indictment. It was a mockery of the system. He literally did all the things he’s being charged with, and much more to boot. There’s a reason literally all of his coconspirators have already plead guilty.
Thanks for setting my olive branch on fire.
(Emotionally yes that resonates, but I'm interested in Introvert's perspective, and flaming olive branches don't do as well, especially since it's not something I personally am informed enough to -know-, just something that I might expect given my own biases.)
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 20 2023 11:16 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 10:34 KwarK wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). Russiagate absolutely didn’t work as intended. Trump demanded a personal pledge of loyalty to him over the constitution and when he didn’t get it he fired the guy. Trump appointed a new guy who, in his job application, argued that the DoJ should never recommend charges against a sitting president. Mueller produced a report that specifically stated “does not exonerate” but instead of publishing it he turned it over to Trump’s team who immediately announced that it fully exonerated him. The narrative was established and the DoJ never disputed it. The DoJ were ordered to punt it to the legislative and the Republican legislative refused to do anything without a DoJ indictment. It was a mockery of the system. He literally did all the things he’s being charged with, and much more to boot. There’s a reason literally all of his coconspirators have already plead guilty. Thanks for setting my olive branch on fire. (Emotionally yes that resonates, but I'm interested in Introvert's perspective, and flaming olive branches don't do as well, especially since it's not something I personally am informed enough to -know-, just something that I might expect given my own biases.)
He’s still welcome to respond. The problem is your premise is flawed. There is no such thing as bipartisanship with regard to Trump because Trump has taken over the Republican Party and co-opted it for his own ends. Republicans do not serve America, the constitution, or their own constituents. They serve Trump. Only Trump. If he demands they undermine the fundamental basis of American democracy by making claims of electoral fraud that they know to be untrue then they’ll go ahead and make those claims. They’re cretinous worms who hope that if they scrape and serve in his abusive cult for long enough then they’ll be able to inherit it once he’s gone. Trump openly insults Ted Cruz’s wife and Cruz will still shamelessly make phone calls begging for trump campaign donations. They have no principles or self respect, they live each day terrified that he’ll tweet something negative about them. They know what he is, but they know their base likes him more than they do them.
|
On December 20 2023 11:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 11:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 20 2023 10:34 KwarK wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). Russiagate absolutely didn’t work as intended. Trump demanded a personal pledge of loyalty to him over the constitution and when he didn’t get it he fired the guy. Trump appointed a new guy who, in his job application, argued that the DoJ should never recommend charges against a sitting president. Mueller produced a report that specifically stated “does not exonerate” but instead of publishing it he turned it over to Trump’s team who immediately announced that it fully exonerated him. The narrative was established and the DoJ never disputed it. The DoJ were ordered to punt it to the legislative and the Republican legislative refused to do anything without a DoJ indictment. It was a mockery of the system. He literally did all the things he’s being charged with, and much more to boot. There’s a reason literally all of his coconspirators have already plead guilty. Thanks for setting my olive branch on fire. (Emotionally yes that resonates, but I'm interested in Introvert's perspective, and flaming olive branches don't do as well, especially since it's not something I personally am informed enough to -know-, just something that I might expect given my own biases.) He’s still welcome to respond. The problem is your premise is flawed. There is no such thing as bipartisanship with regard to Trump because Trump has taken over the Republican Party and co-opted it for his own ends. Republicans do not serve America, the constitution, or their own constituents. They serve Trump. Only Trump. If he demands they undermine the fundamental basis of American democracy by making claims of electoral fraud that they know to be untrue then they’ll go ahead and make those claims. They’re cretinous worms who hope that if they scrape and serve in his abusive cult for long enough then they’ll be able to inherit it once he’s gone. Trump openly insults Ted Cruz’s wife and Cruz will still shamelessly make phone calls begging for trump campaign donations. They have no principles or self respect, they live each day terrified that he’ll tweet something negative about them. They know what he is, but they know their base likes him more than they do them.
I know he's still welcome to respond! I appreciate the tangential correction on my premise. The problem is that for you to announce the problem, you'd have to understand my goals. Since my goals are just to understand Introvert's perspective, operating from a flawed premise is perfectly acceptable and I'm able to understand the perspective through the flawed premise. Even if I wholeheartedly believe Trump is a fascist and deserves to be in jail, engaging with that 'unflawed' premise does not serve my goals, as it futher confounds any answer I do recieve. Rather, it's easier to set aside my own biases and engage under a 'flawed premise' that I expect Introvert might hold to get a cleaner answer.
Granted, it's reasonable for you to expect I believe the words I say and not that I'm being something of a duplicitous fuck, but... here we are. Now you know!
|
On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time!
It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem?
|
On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence).
It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done.
As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one."
On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem?
When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it.
I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas.
The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here.
|
United States43611 Posts
The NY case is already over. The judge already ruled on the fraud. He did it.
|
|
|
US political debates these days are quite something. The two sides' echo chambers are so, so far apart in the facts they cover and the narratives that result. When you actually expose yourself to all of the raw facts, the echo-chamber narratives crumble very quickly. But don't tell that to the narrative adherents.
Then when you throw Donald Trump into that mix you get a true powder keg. It's actually a civil war risk and don't take it from me, take it from the FBI. I'm not kidding when I say, get yourself some prepper essentials.
|
On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here.
I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act.
|
On December 20 2023 01:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2023 20:17 EnDeR_ wrote:
One of the things I find indefensible about choosing trump as your standard bearer is that he is such an obvious moron. Famously has an attention span measured in seconds, can't sit down to read a document more than a few lines long and struggles to speak in complete sentences. To top that off, he has zero original thought - the height of his political acumen was to push the childish idea of building a wall. I genuinely don't get how one can get past that and not think 'surely we could do someone better?' They’re simply contrarians. They like that we don’t like him. Whenever we go “you can’t elect a complete moron to the highest office” they get excited at the prospect of angering us. There’s still the Obama era pushback too. Obama triggered the fuck out of them with his undeniable intelligence, charisma, ad fitness for the job. The idea that a black man might govern them just because he was qualified hurts them deep in their shitty little souls. It’s very important to them that they get the most unqualified white man they can find in charge. One with no skills, experience, or education. One that was born 3-0 up and believed he scored a hat trick. They need us to know that their identity politics is still the majority. They want an old white guy who knows nothing about virology overruling all the scientists because nobody at work listens to them anymore. They want a rich guy shitting in a golden toilet because they don’t have indoor plumbing. They want a guy who abuses women because their bitch ex wife won’t let them see their kids anymore. They’re a very pathetic, very bitter identity politics group that are motivated by contrarianism and spite. They don’t not see that the man can’t read, they like it.
Electing the biggest, most unqualified moron to the highest office of the land as a reaction to having being governed by a competent black man does ring true for a subset of the voting population. But, how large is that subset, surely it's not a majority? I mean, even for America, that's a bit much.
Maybe a question for the more conservative leaning people in this thread. Do people still believe Trump to be a genius playing 10D chess or is there is a different reason for supporting Trump as the conservative standard bearer other than 'he's popular with a subset of the conservative base'?
|
On December 20 2023 19:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 01:40 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2023 20:17 EnDeR_ wrote:
One of the things I find indefensible about choosing trump as your standard bearer is that he is such an obvious moron. Famously has an attention span measured in seconds, can't sit down to read a document more than a few lines long and struggles to speak in complete sentences. To top that off, he has zero original thought - the height of his political acumen was to push the childish idea of building a wall. I genuinely don't get how one can get past that and not think 'surely we could do someone better?' They’re simply contrarians. They like that we don’t like him. Whenever we go “you can’t elect a complete moron to the highest office” they get excited at the prospect of angering us. There’s still the Obama era pushback too. Obama triggered the fuck out of them with his undeniable intelligence, charisma, ad fitness for the job. The idea that a black man might govern them just because he was qualified hurts them deep in their shitty little souls. It’s very important to them that they get the most unqualified white man they can find in charge. One with no skills, experience, or education. One that was born 3-0 up and believed he scored a hat trick. They need us to know that their identity politics is still the majority. They want an old white guy who knows nothing about virology overruling all the scientists because nobody at work listens to them anymore. They want a rich guy shitting in a golden toilet because they don’t have indoor plumbing. They want a guy who abuses women because their bitch ex wife won’t let them see their kids anymore. They’re a very pathetic, very bitter identity politics group that are motivated by contrarianism and spite. They don’t not see that the man can’t read, they like it. Electing the biggest, most unqualified moron to the highest office of the land as a reaction to having being governed by a competent black man does ring true for a subset of the voting population. But, how large is that subset, surely it's not a majority? I mean, even for America, that's a bit much. Maybe a question for the more conservative leaning people in this thread. Do people still believe Trump to be a genius playing 10D chess or is there is a different reason for supporting Trump as the conservative standard bearer other than 'he's popular with a subset of the conservative base'?
Gotta own dem libtards.
|
On December 20 2023 19:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 01:40 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2023 20:17 EnDeR_ wrote:
One of the things I find indefensible about choosing trump as your standard bearer is that he is such an obvious moron. Famously has an attention span measured in seconds, can't sit down to read a document more than a few lines long and struggles to speak in complete sentences. To top that off, he has zero original thought - the height of his political acumen was to push the childish idea of building a wall. I genuinely don't get how one can get past that and not think 'surely we could do someone better?' They’re simply contrarians. They like that we don’t like him. Whenever we go “you can’t elect a complete moron to the highest office” they get excited at the prospect of angering us. There’s still the Obama era pushback too. Obama triggered the fuck out of them with his undeniable intelligence, charisma, ad fitness for the job. The idea that a black man might govern them just because he was qualified hurts them deep in their shitty little souls. It’s very important to them that they get the most unqualified white man they can find in charge. One with no skills, experience, or education. One that was born 3-0 up and believed he scored a hat trick. They need us to know that their identity politics is still the majority. They want an old white guy who knows nothing about virology overruling all the scientists because nobody at work listens to them anymore. They want a rich guy shitting in a golden toilet because they don’t have indoor plumbing. They want a guy who abuses women because their bitch ex wife won’t let them see their kids anymore. They’re a very pathetic, very bitter identity politics group that are motivated by contrarianism and spite. They don’t not see that the man can’t read, they like it. Electing the biggest, most unqualified moron to the highest office of the land as a reaction to having being governed by a competent black man does ring true for a subset of the voting population. But, how large is that subset, surely it's not a majority? I mean, even for America, that's a bit much. Maybe a question for the more conservative leaning people in this thread. Do people still believe Trump to be a genius playing 10D chess or is there is a different reason for supporting Trump as the conservative standard bearer other than 'he's popular with a subset of the conservative base'? For a majority of Republican voters it is. Tea Party > Freedom Caucus > Trump is pretty much a direct line of reactions from Obama's election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
