|
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 |
On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 06:39 Razyda wrote:
On the topic of rhetoric this is tweet from Hilary:
This come across rather ominous from a women who has a running meme: "nobody have 56 friends who committed suicide" What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him. When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Edit: Happy birthday New Sunshine. Edit 2: Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:39 NewSunshine wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think. bolded - Oh, but people do understand. They took over state institutions, they censored people, they extended government power at the cost of citizens freedom and prosecuted political opponents. That's why people vote against Democrats. What else do you think was in 5 days? Also Trump himself has said he doesn't want to run again if he loses.He would be too old, and he would've lost twice in a row. Bolded - And that is thing Trump said you believed in? Personally I think Trump will run as long as he can, whatever he said, If he loose he will keep running till he either die or win.
Hey, look, people on the right keep telling me I need to take Trump at his word. They should be happy for me. Also, I tend to think he'd hate losing a second time, and probably wouldn't wanna drum himself up for a third loss from there. And despite everything, I think his advanced age will only continue to work against him from here, in every way imaginable.
Also, thank you all for the kind words, very much. Not dead yet!
|
On November 02 2024 08:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him. When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" You didn't answer my question, you didn't highlight part of your post, and you haven't explained what you mean by Hillary Clinton's post "sounding ominous". What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I'm not a deteriorating 78-year-old man repeatedly running for president who's likely to be on his last attempt for winning the presidency, so your analogy isn't relevant. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I can answer my own question with my own interpretation of her post. I think Hillary is suggesting that if we can defeat Trump during this next election, then we won't need to worry about him becoming president again and that he'll generally leave politics. Of course, she could be wrong about that - even if Harris beats Trump next week, Trump may attempt to run again in four years, or he may successfully steal the election in a month or so, or even as a private citizen (non-president) he may still attempt to interfere in our lives with his still-existing political leverage - but that's still what I think Hillary is suggesting. Now it's your turn. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? bolded - where did I say she is suggesting anything?? All I said is that it "came across ominous" isn't it personal interpretation? Italic - cute, but with picture of Trump and no word about president doesn't hold.
Yeah I figured you were too embarrassed to admit what you were implying.
|
On November 02 2024 09:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 08:59 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him. When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" You didn't answer my question, you didn't highlight part of your post, and you haven't explained what you mean by Hillary Clinton's post "sounding ominous". What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I'm not a deteriorating 78-year-old man repeatedly running for president who's likely to be on his last attempt for winning the presidency, so your analogy isn't relevant. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I can answer my own question with my own interpretation of her post. I think Hillary is suggesting that if we can defeat Trump during this next election, then we won't need to worry about him becoming president again and that he'll generally leave politics. Of course, she could be wrong about that - even if Harris beats Trump next week, Trump may attempt to run again in four years, or he may successfully steal the election in a month or so, or even as a private citizen (non-president) he may still attempt to interfere in our lives with his still-existing political leverage - but that's still what I think Hillary is suggesting. Now it's your turn. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? bolded - where did I say she is suggesting anything?? All I said is that it "came across ominous" isn't it personal interpretation? Italic - cute, but with picture of Trump and no word about president doesn't hold. Yeah I figured you were too embarrassed to admit what you were implying.
Where did I imply anything?? I clearly stated that her words are ominous and that interpretation is personal preference.
Bizarrely you interpreted my words as call to murder Trump. Seems like a projection to me.
|
Alright I think we can safely say this thread is now various people with all kinds of different views trying to deal with a handful of right-wing trolls.
|
On November 02 2024 09:38 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright I think we can safely say this thread is now various people with all kinds of different views trying to deal with a handful of right-wing trolls.
Or we can say that people with no arguments run out of arguments...
also lol at "all kinds of different views".
I also missed this post:
On November 02 2024 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:39 NewSunshine wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think. bolded - Oh, but people do understand. They took over state institutions, they censored people, they extended government power at the cost of citizens freedom and prosecuted political opponents. That's why people vote against Democrats. What else do you think was in 5 days? Also Trump himself has said he doesn't want to run again if he loses. He would be too old, and he would've lost twice in a row. Happy birthday, NewSunshine! And to be clear, Razyda, wishing NewSunshine a happy birthday doesn't mean I wish you would murder Trump before his next one.
Congratulation you totally won this discussion on the basis of logic and merit.
As of now I feel humbled by your on point and insightful response hence from now I'll vote Kamala every time I get a chance...
|
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
On November 02 2024 09:57 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 09:38 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright I think we can safely say this thread is now various people with all kinds of different views trying to deal with a handful of right-wing trolls. Or we can say that people with no arguments run out of arguments... also lol at "all kinds of different views".I also missed this post: Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:39 NewSunshine wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think. bolded - Oh, but people do understand. They took over state institutions, they censored people, they extended government power at the cost of citizens freedom and prosecuted political opponents. That's why people vote against Democrats. What else do you think was in 5 days? Also Trump himself has said he doesn't want to run again if he loses. He would be too old, and he would've lost twice in a row. Happy birthday, NewSunshine! And to be clear, Razyda, wishing NewSunshine a happy birthday doesn't mean I wish you would murder Trump before his next one. Congratulation you totally won this discussion on the basis of logic and merit. As of now I feel humbled by your on point and insightful response hence from now I'll vote Kamala every time I get a chance...
Just because there’s (near) unanimity on Trump being an absolute shitbag doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of divergent thought.
Indeed perhaps the one silver lining of the Trump era is stopping us from arguing much more than we otherwise would in US Pol
|
On November 02 2024 10:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 09:57 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 09:38 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright I think we can safely say this thread is now various people with all kinds of different views trying to deal with a handful of right-wing trolls. Or we can say that people with no arguments run out of arguments... also lol at "all kinds of different views".I also missed this post: On November 02 2024 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:39 NewSunshine wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" On November 02 2024 01:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 01:07 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2024 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok yeah sure, why not. Lets use the same reasoning. Hitler was also only using hyperbole, right? He only acted on his words later, he wasn't doing anything bad until he started doing bad things.
Oh wait, Trump already delivered on his words when he picked three anti-choice justices. All three of them ended up overturning Roe v Wade. Here are the only three judges that opposed the new ruling:
Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.
Awesome, under Trump many rape victims can no longer have a legal abortion. Fantastic.
And this is only one of plenty of examples of Trump already causing terrible harm to Americans and the world. Remember the Paris climate accord? Trump's fault. Iran nuclear deal? Trump's fault. Anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Trump's fault. Attempts at undermining democracy? Trump's fault.
So we have sufficient evidence that Trump's words lead to real life consequences. Now that his rhetoric got even worse, we shouldn't trust him on any of it, right? We should just stick our fingers in our ears. If Trump wins and puts Kamala in front of a firing squad, you're welcome to say 'I told you so' Yeah if I just want to be right and that's my whole motivation, sure. Problem is I want to prevent an obvious train crash that people keep making excuses for, so my goal is ideally to never be proven right. I prefer if people don't have to explain away how they let a disaster happen that everyone could see coming from miles away. Apparently people never learned from the fallout of Nazi Germany. Now I understand much better how Hitler came into power. I'll be honest I didn't think I was going to be to blame for the holocaust today. Still, I love a new experience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm talking about Trump being a fascist and people not understanding how these people come into power. We have facists in power in Austria right this very moment. History repeats itself much more easily than you'd think. bolded - Oh, but people do understand. They took over state institutions, they censored people, they extended government power at the cost of citizens freedom and prosecuted political opponents. That's why people vote against Democrats. What else do you think was in 5 days? Also Trump himself has said he doesn't want to run again if he loses. He would be too old, and he would've lost twice in a row. Happy birthday, NewSunshine! And to be clear, Razyda, wishing NewSunshine a happy birthday doesn't mean I wish you would murder Trump before his next one. Congratulation you totally won this discussion on the basis of logic and merit. As of now I feel humbled by your on point and insightful response hence from now I'll vote Kamala every time I get a chance... Just because there’s (near) unanimity on Trump being an absolute shitbag doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of divergent thought. Indeed perhaps the one silver lining of the Trump era is stopping us from arguing much more than we otherwise would in US Pol
I appreciate your opinion, no sarcasm, I really do (ever since you were able to call censorship once it was shown), however I think that your statement about " unanimity on Trump being an absolute shitbag" is of the mark, because there is still 70 odd milion people willing to vote for him.
|
On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far.
I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up."
|
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
|
On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up."
Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy.
When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
|
Hillary going after Trump after he loses is the worst conspiracy theory ever, why go after a 2 time loser? He is only going to be a worse candidate in 4 years and he already lost as 8 years younger and 4 years younger. Hell Hillary will probably donate to his primary campaign.
Next obviously Cheney had values. You can disagree with those values but they exist and they matter to her. The Republicans used to have those same values. Trump trampled all of them, insulted anyone who upheld them and has none of those values. Trump betrayed those values.
Id a democrat said half the shit about McCain before Trump what would have you thought of them? Why is it alright for Trump? That he pisses off Dems is enough to make him cool and good? He should piss Republicans off more. The ones that are towing the line are the traitors. If you supported McCain and Trump you don't have values, you have a team you route for without reason.
|
Canada11321 Posts
On November 02 2024 09:35 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 09:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 08:59 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him. When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" You didn't answer my question, you didn't highlight part of your post, and you haven't explained what you mean by Hillary Clinton's post "sounding ominous". What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I'm not a deteriorating 78-year-old man repeatedly running for president who's likely to be on his last attempt for winning the presidency, so your analogy isn't relevant. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? I can answer my own question with my own interpretation of her post. I think Hillary is suggesting that if we can defeat Trump during this next election, then we won't need to worry about him becoming president again and that he'll generally leave politics. Of course, she could be wrong about that - even if Harris beats Trump next week, Trump may attempt to run again in four years, or he may successfully steal the election in a month or so, or even as a private citizen (non-president) he may still attempt to interfere in our lives with his still-existing political leverage - but that's still what I think Hillary is suggesting. Now it's your turn. What do you think Hillary is suggesting? bolded - where did I say she is suggesting anything?? All I said is that it "came across ominous" isn't it personal interpretation? Italic - cute, but with picture of Trump and no word about president doesn't hold. Yeah I figured you were too embarrassed to admit what you were implying. Where did I imply anything?? I clearly stated that her words are ominous and that interpretation is personal preference. Bizarrely you interpreted my words as call to murder Trump. Seems like a projection to me.
So it's just a feeling you have? We are guided by feelings and vibes? And there is no explicable basis for said feelings?
"So this passage in the story, what atmosphere did it invoke?"
"Ominous"
"Ok, great- what makes you think that?"
"It's just a personal preference."
"Anything in the text that would support that?"
"The words that were used. They came across ominous."
"What, specifically, do those words imply? What would you infer from them that makes it ominous?"
"It just personal preference, a vibe I get."
Okey-dokey.
|
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
Yeah I agree. Liz Cheney is being the principled one, not Romney or Bush.
|
On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness?
Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda.
|
On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up."
This is just lazy “look what you’re making me do” stuff though. Sure, some people called Bush Hitler. Same for Obama, and Trump, and Biden, and probably every president to come.
I never called Bush (Jr. or Sr.) or McCain or Romney fascist. I didn’t jump straight to calling Trump fascist either, even when I thought he was clearly a terrible president, because I don’t think the word would be used as a synonym for “bad.” But he is fascist, he’s ranting about blood poisoning and immigrants hurting the gene pool and pontificating about the wonderful law and order that would be achieved if we just let our police and military do what needs to be done, however ugly or “illegal” it might be.
At the end of the day it’s your job as a citizen to figure this shit out for yourself, and if you get that wrong, “yeah well the other side cried wolf before so I didn’t believe them” isn’t a fuckin excuse. It wasn’t their job to stop you from supporting fascists in the first place, it was yours.
+ Show Spoiler +I mean “you” in the broader rhetorical sense, of course, not necessarily singling you out specifically.
Attributing various crimes to “the left” amounts to nothing more than an ambiguous “they,” lazily claiming the moral high ground over somebody (but nobody in particular).
|
On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best.
Can you please elaborate on how the media and Democrats treated Romney like a monster? All I honestly remember was that his quotes about "binders full of women", "corporations are people", and "47% of Americans don't pay taxes but will vote for Obama" (or whatever the exact wordings were) went viral, and were perhaps taken out of context. I assume you're referring to more than just potentially misquoting him, though?
Separately: I don't recall many people calling Bush, McCain, or Romney fascist - and they weren't fascist - but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is literally fascist and deserves to be accurately labeled as fascist.
|
That is a very rich comment from Hillary. Her losing 8 years ago hasn't stopped us from having to hear about her at all, but that would have been a good example to set if she now wanted people to dump her old orange friend.
On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad
Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:
When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
So you listened to Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk, correct?
|
On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda.
Harris has made clear that she wants immigration reform, including the passing of a border bill. She also has a variety of economic plans that would benefit everyone, not just Democrats. Small business owners, first-time homeowners, and first-time parents could be Republicans too. Addressing price gouging for groceries and capping medical costs for drugs are also reasons to vote for her. There are plenty of things she promotes that would help Republicans (and everyone else).
|
On November 02 2024 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda. Harris has made clear that she wants immigration reform, including the passing of a border bill. She also has a variety of economic plans that would benefit everyone, not just Democrats. Small business owners, first-time homeowners, and first-time parents could be Republicans too. Addressing price gouging for groceries and capping medical costs for drugs are also reasons to vote for her. There are plenty of things she promotes that would help Republicans (and everyone else).
But if she's not promising to sic the police on Democrats after she wins, is she really doing anything for Republicans? Simply giving millions of Republicans substantial tax breaks and improving the economy for them while she's at it doesn't amount to anything...
|
Canada2522 Posts
On November 02 2024 12:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
Oops you forgot how words work, better luck next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
