President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I speak only for myself, but what you wrote above doesn't reflect my views at all. U.S. Republicans currently are supporting an amoral grifter who is unwilling to distinguish, or incapable of distinguishing, between the national interest and his personal interest. I want them to quit supporting such a person. If they were to transfer their support to a non-garbage person, I
fwiw in general when I say leftists I don't include you.
for the rest I am still waiting for which names in the republican party would be treated differently and still be actually on the right (IE willing to attempt to change things dramatically when they currently reflect leftist values).
I understand that a republican that played ball with 90-99% of establishment ideas would be acceptable at least by you.
but is there anyone who truly thinks the DoE and EPA should be abolished, and every single illegal alien deported, that you would consider "non garbage"?
Who is it that gets to tell a woman she must remain pregnant?
You?
God?
Which god?
Your god?
The god that slaughtered every fetus on earth in the Great Flood?
Here is a great 11 minute rundown on the psychology of dictator takeovers. The people want it. When there is a threat to one's identity, a culture war where one is all-in no matter what comes with it ... is characteristic of the phenomenon. "People will do anything to win a culture war." -- Vaknin
Oh the irony!
I suppose you are not a native english speaker (like myself) otherwise that would be quite stunning.
Oh the irony!
I suppose you are not a native english speaker (like myself) otherwise that would be quite stunning.
Not only is English my native and only language, I had over a dozen opinion pieces published in The Orange County Register in the 1990's.
But then, chess grandmasters hang their queens on occasion.
Trump Birthday Parade Cancelled Over Irregularities on His Birth Certificate ... Read All About It! (LOL)
I don't think exaggeration is lying.
Having said that, if you're accusing someone of lying (Luciom in that case), even exaggerating arguably undermines your critique.
Great, another that think fraud is ok .
Go trump go….
Do u got this opinion from the bible or its a fact from a medical degree ?
Huh?
When did I say or imply that 'fraud is ok'?
Did you even understand the context of the post of mine you were responding too.
Because trump fraud was about « exaggerating » his financial assets to commit fraud .
to believe exagerating isnt lying is laughable, it wouldn’t stand in a court of law .
I don't understand the question.
Opinion about what?.
The discussion was whether the unborn can be properly referred to as a baby.
The post I linked and Gorgos own link to the oxford dictionary both agreed that an unborn child can be correctly referred to as 'baby'.
Gorgo kinda implied that such usage is in some sense not completely legitimate given that is not included in the 'scientific' definition of 'baby.'
Because trump fraud was about « exaggerating » his financial assets to commit fraud .
to believe exagerating isnt lying is laughable, it wouldn’t stand in a court of law .
In the above context I agree with you.
But that wasn't the context in my exchange with Coordi.
Context matters when responding to posts.
In the above context I agree with you.
But that wasn't the context in my exchange with Coordi.
Context matters when responding to posts.
It was about luciom right ?
Yup seem pretty much on target to me ….
Like trump constantly exagerating on evrything to dis tort the truth .
Tho I concede luciom isnt as bad as trump on that point .
Because trump fraud was about « exaggerating » his financial assets to commit fraud .
to believe exagerating isnt lying is laughable, it wouldn’t stand in a court of law .
In order for a fraud to be there, you need someone to be the victim of such fraud don't you? who would be the victim?
I was NOT trying to be ironic when I wrote "TWO DUMB TO MAKE UP." I legit thought I was using the correct spelling.
Quoted four posterity.
Trump rejects a court ruling that could've saved him from himself
The markets, the voters and two courts have all offered
Trump a hand to rescue him from this river of madness.
But he has rejected every entreaty.
As is so often the case with Trump, though, it’ll be others who drown.
When news broke that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal,
I thought of the old familiar story of the man who lived by the river.
Upon hearing a weather report that the river will flood,
he resolves to stay. “God will save me,” he says.
After being swept into the river, he’s carried past a
branch he doesn’t reach for. “God will save me,” he says.
He doesn’t take the hand of a fisherman in his boat because, again, “God will save me.”
When the drowned man gets to heaven, he asks why God let him drown,
and God replies, “I sent you a weather report, a branch and a boat.
I understand that a republican that played ball with 90-99% of establishment ideas would be acceptable at least by you.
I didn't say anything about what would be acceptable to me.
but is there anyone who truly thinks the DoE and EPA should be abolished, and every single illegal alien deported, that you would consider "non garbage"?
I don't know how to answer this question. I certainly can imagine a person supporting these ideas who wasn't an amoral grifter who effectively believes in nothing except his own self-interest. In other words, I can imagine a person very different from Trump believing in these ideas.
But a candidate who supported all these ideas very likely would adhere to something like your beliefs, and I don't want anyone with your beliefs anywhere near the White House.
I didn't say anything about what would be acceptable to me.I don't know how to answer this question. I certainly can imagine a person supporting these ideas who wasn't an amoral grifter who effectively believes in nothing except his own self-interest. In other words, I can imagine a person very different from Trump believing in these ideas.But a candidate who supported all th
ye ok so it's not much about Trump, see what i mean? criticism would be 24/7 with the same intensity even if the president was Vance. Including the "democracy is at risk" criticism.
Trump peculiarity, his grotesque approach to speech content, his history of personal failures, and so on matter only when you guys think talking about that can convince someone not to vote for him.
But you guys just can't stomach anyone being actually rightwing being allowed to yield power.
Btw a Vance has pretty different beliefs than mine on some very relevant stuff, in a way that i think would be worse for you as well.
And Vance is *very far* from being the maximum you can find on the right, like if the median american is 50 (1 max left 100 max right) Vance isn't over 70.
It all goes to "democracy is at risk if the right can govern". Which is nonsense. Except if you mean the specific liberal democracy with specific provisions you like is at risk, well then yes, it is, because they don't agree those provisions are proper!
It's either that elections don't matter, and then whomever wins can't affect any meaningful change, or if they matter then you have to accept everything within the limits of the constitution could happen and if it does *it is not a failure of democracy itself*, it's a failure of the specific project for society you abide to, which isn't "democracy".
What you wrote above is all wrong.
First, I never claimed that I would be OK with with a right wing fanatic as president, even if that right wing fanatic was very different from Trump.
Second, you are simply wrong when you say that I would accuse any Republican of undermine democracy. I didn't accuse previous Republican presidents of undermining democracy and fomenting autocracy to the same degree as Trump. Previous GOP presidents weren't ideal on this point. Nor were previous Democratic presidents. But no president in my lifetime has undermined democracy to nearly the extent Trump has. Will future GOP candidates follow Trump down this dark path that he has cut through the forest? I can't know for sure, but they haven't shown many signs yet of wanting to turn back.
Third, pointing out that I would level many of the same criticisms at Vance isn't nearly the checkmate you believe it is. Of course I would. Except for Trump, no one other than Vance has been more insidious about promoting the idea that the executive branch shouldn't be required to follow court orders.
Fourth, the idea that we either have to unshackle the president or resign ourselves to the status quo is ludicrous on its face. The POTUS always has wielded enormous power. Giving the office more power is a terrible idea imo. And change has occurred. We don't need an American Orban to achieve it. That's just something the Orbans of the world tell people like you in order to justify tightening their grip.
