Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
"Trump has long been known for the brash, even vulgar way he sometimes speaks about women. He has also been dogged by allegations about sexual misconduct and extramarital affairs. Accusations of sexism plagued his 2016 presidential campaign, a race he won despite the October release of a video in which he bragged about being able to grab women by their genitals because he’s a celebrity.
In 2023, a civil court found Trump liable of sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s. The former president was later ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages for his defamatory statements disparaging Carroll and denying her rape allegations."
And now the Republicans are trying to HIDE all of that misogyny. Women should be afraid when they are around Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/20/politics … index.htmlAll these Trump-Musk-American banking and finance system issues are completely foreign to me.
I wonder if Kamala Harris will start out many of her speeches with "I want to compare my time as the top prosecutor for the State of California with Donald Trump's life as a felon and sexual predator."
Arguing politics aside. Trump is a convicted felon. Sit with that for a minute. Do we really want to cross that Rubicon?
And the American people will decide if those convictions are the result of a weaponized justice system and a collection of NY Judges, AGs, prosecutors that bent their State Justice system to their political will.
In other words, meaningless, just another assassin's bullet meant to take Trump out, but only making his popularity stronger among a growing base of supporters.Not to mention juries who are corrupt by default if they find Trump guilty. See, you are living proof Trump has come a long way in destroying American democracy.
Boy, isn't it amazing how many things have to all work at the same time for your hypothesis to be true. What are the odds of that happening? A million to one? That is why it is called a conspiracy theory.
Occam's Razor applies here, the simplest answer is the truth; and that is that Trump is a criminal and NOT this massively complex conspiracy you ascribe to.Just a couple of problems with that Razor. Democrats have persecuted Trump for almost a decade now, and right in the open. We all watched the dog and pony show of a fake impeachment, for instance. Second there was no one to witness that "sexual predation"...except one woman from a long, long time ago.
Of the two, I know which holds priority in MY mind. Of course I don't froth at the mouth with desire to prove guilt, either.As I recall, you didn't even watch the events of Jan.6. You said it was a peaceful gathering of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump tried to steal the election from Biden and to this day he and his supporters who live in his alternate reality also think Trump won the election.
Trump believes he is above the law and his supporters could care less if he is guilty. They just want to have fun at his rallies and put down the other side. Actually with all his court manipulations, he just makes himself above the law.. I have never heard him say no one is above the law.Your recollection is far from correct, for there was a small riot. Not an insurrection, mind you, but a riot not much different than what was being seen all across the country.
You are likely remembering Trump telling people to "march peacefully" even as you say he started the "insurrection" with those same words.I think we are remembering Trump telling people to go "Fight to Save our Country" on multiple occasions and sitting around watching TV being gratified in what he caused.
I think we are remembering that 2,000 people were arrested and many thousands more were not arrested yet for breaking into the Capitol and violently trying to stop Biden from becoming the President - the very definition of an Insurrection.
Our memory is fine. It is yours and you motivation that are in question.And those things mean I wrote, in these forums, that it was peaceful?
Better go back and re-read what PP posted, as well as what I said. Your reading comprehension does not seem to be the best.
But I do remember the terrible violence by the rioters there in order to stop the election. The one swinging from the chandelier, the one laid back in Pelosi's chair, etc. Yeah, there were a few blows at security, but in the main the only violence done was to doors and windows.You just made my point about your faulty memory.
Whom a jury of his peers decided he sexually abused that woman (in case you didn't know, impartial juries are generally how we determine guilt in America).
Ask yourself - why has the state and federal Justice systems prosecuted Trump for five decades? Because he keeps committing crimes Now, I understand your desire not to prosecute people who break the law, but the rest of us Americans think that if there is evidence you broke the law, you should be prosecuted.
MAGA already has crossed it. Being a felon AND a sexual predator now seems to be a requirement for their choice to be president.
"Ohio state senator at Vance rally says it would take a "civil war" to save the country if Trump not elected"
CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? This guy is so deep into Trump's artificial world that he is calling on a civil war if Trump loses. He is NOT suggesting it might "cause" a civil war but that to save America, one will need to be started by Trump supporters!!!
Trumper's are outright lunatics.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … f2f070a6b3What kind of mentally-challenged idiot picks a VP running-mate who thinks you are a sexual predator AND has said so many times. Well, that would be pathological liar, felon, and convicted sexual predator Donald J. Trump. (Vance has also frequently said that Trump is unfit for office. - Go figure.)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics … index.htmlHear MAGA's RACISM on full display.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/politics … ead-digvidYea, DEI is just another racist code word for nonwhite male candidates. I hope tha VP Harris takes out her machete and hacks Trump and MAGA to bits over this.
The woman's issues will be highlighted under her candidacy, and while Joe Biden was painfully mute in attacking our enemies, she will not be. That is what we need.
Bets are on the Trump will try to weasel out of the September debates, attacking the proposed host, ABC news.
We have a lot great ammo with Harris and we should never allow our powder to run dry.I apparently spoke too soon. Trump just said he won't debate Harris in September. I can understand why, she would cut him to shreds.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-t … fc7de1d957Trump, if nothing else is a coward. I hope that this very point Ms. Harris brings to the front and center to show the "yellow" in Trump through and through. After all, what does a "stable genius" like Trump have to fear from a "DEI" candidate opponent like Harris?
Yup. You could read some of forum racists using the same language already.
Absolutely, I have seen plenty of examples already displayed. But I am confident that Kamala Harris as a former prosecutor knows how to frame arguments and will eat Trump and MAGA for lunch. Now, that is our retribution.
Retribution...
Yeah, failing economy, WWIII on the burners... you need a few more years to finish off your retribution, and Harris is the perfect stooge to represent what the Democrats stand for today.
I think the country has the two ideal candidates to represent what their options are... and what the differences are. Damned near perfect..."I think the country has the two ideal candidates to represent what their options are... and what the differences are. Damned near perfect..."
on this particular point, you are absolutely correct. Let us see how America makes its selection?Great! It's either Donald Trump or Harris Kamala. God save America!
People have a clear choice, it is always good to Un muddle things.
Yep, you have a prosecutor who have put a lot of people like Trump in Jail or the career criminal himself.
The choice is clearly between fascism and freedom and it will be much harder for Republicans to try to disguise themselves as moderates. This all may turn out for a successful outcome.
Let them decide. And come November 5. I wait.
Forum racists? You really have planted your flag, haven't you?
Apparently, I'm also back in the racist Trump supporter category (did I ever leave it?), even though I don't support Trump, and DEI, for me, is a label/codeword for selection based on criteria other than capability or merit.
I don't think that is racist, but (like the Brit "coconut" example) apparently because someone else does, then I must be.
Damn, so be it, but I bet none can show that my description isn't correct. I'll hold to what DEI means to me and ya'll can call it whatever you want.
GA"DEI, for me, is a label/codeword for selection based on criteria other than capability or merit."
We often hear questions whether a minority individual is qualified for the job. But we seem to seldomly hear questions about whether a white male is actually qualified for the job.
For me the reality is that there are lots of qualified candidates of any race for any position. And of those qualified candidates, white male seem to be chosen disproportionately when diversity hiring is not a consideration.
For me DEI isn't a problem if you don't change your hiring bar. I don't believe DEI is about changing the hiring bar. The goal, IMO, is to ensure your slate of candidates is diverse. If the rest of your hiring process is reasonably unbiased, that means your employees will be diverse as well, automatically.
Is the accusation that hiring bars are being lowered? My view is that DEI is an effort to find more people that meet the bar.
Diversity, for me, doesn't mean under qualified or unqualified.Yes, totally agree. Just because Hunter Biden was white he got the job in Ukraine?
So... when Biden said he was going to pick a... hold one let me look for the actual quote
Joe Biden says 4 Black women are in the running to be his vice president
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-bid … red-2020-7
Joe Biden Definitively Vows to Pick a Woman Vice President
https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woma … president/
Just making sure... you are correct, nothing DEI about that pick.
Glad we straightened that out.The ONLY reason you are upset is that Biden didn't perpetuate the white male dominance that exclude woman and Blacks from positions of power.
It is about time some wrongs were righted. I bet you would have opposed the 13th Amendment because it was DEI also.
Much of what you say has been and is, our reality. I know the slander that is attached to its use, but I wasn't speaking to any accusations or their intent. My point was that any hiring process that uses an organized DEI program is discriminatory by its nature.
Consider your "bar" thought. Your logic makes it the hiring ceiling when it should be the floor. In cases where the bar of qualifications is met by one and exceeded by another, how should an employer choose? Settle for the 'bar' or increase his benefit by choosing the one that exceeds the bar? Or, use DEI criteria as additional weighting factors?
The bar doesn't have to be lowered if there are one-sided bonus points.
Wait, before anyone hyperventilates. At the start, I said I wasn't speaking to accusations (such as this one) or the purposely slanderous use (yep, I hear it too) that are what you hear.
Our laws say you can't discriminate but organized DEI programs (as the government promotes) do exactly that. Will it take as long for us to see that as it did for the Affirmative Action programs verdict?
Beyond being a quasi-legal contradiction, it is an illogical expectation of employers: why should they pay* (inclusive of all "pay" costs, not just the money) the same for less benefit to the company?
GAI think you apply common sense to a policy that is absent of it:
Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … workforce/
Advancing DEIA requires that the federal workforce address the needs of many communities
who may be underserved in the federal workforce, including:
• People of color, such as Black and African American, Hispanic and Latino, Native American, Alaska Native and Indigenous, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and North African persons;
• Individuals who belong to communities that face discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity (including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, gender non-conforming, and non-binary (LGBTQI+) individuals);
• Individuals who face discrimination based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions;
• Parents and caregivers;
• Individuals who belong to communities that face discrimination based on their religion;
• Individuals with disabilities;
• First-generation professionals or first-generation college students;
• Individuals with limited English proficiency
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … .23.21.pdf
In essence everyone is a priority hire... except one particular race of a particular sex, especially if they are English speaking.
As I say, Harris is the perfect stooge to place at the head of what the Democrat party has become all about.And I would argue the history has proven that as a rule, when DEI isn't involved in the hiring practice, that practice ends up discriminating against women and minorities. So pick your poison.
Personally, I pick a practice that requires everybody be considered equally and when it is possible, bring in a diversity of views. That is what makes the Democratic Party so much better than the Conservative party; the Democrats have a very wide tent by design while the Conservatives have a very small tent, also by design.Seems like no one had a problem when women or minorities were denied hiring opportunities, hands down. I tire of Anglos believing that discriminatory practices in hiring are a thing of the past. There is just another excuse to ensure that only white men are deserving and qualified.
I went through a certain amount of this in my Civil Service Career and I still resent it.
You know that they said that Barack Obama was a DEI hire, one of the most educated men to have ever assumed the office of President of the United States. Who are the Rightwingers trying to fool by equivocating?
https://www.higheredu.com/blog/10-us-pr … ed-degrees
Obama made the top 10, not bad for a DEI hire?And that's why there are opposing ideologies. You tolerate a known wrong because you think the goals are worthy. I don't accept that two wrongs can make a right — simply because I (generically) want the results.
GA
Doesn't doing it your way in a society that has a strong and long history of racism and still has a large component of racists in it guarantee perpetuating racism. Racists will not automatically stop discriminatory hiring practices out of the goodness of their heart.
I don't know of any white men that have been described in terms of DEI, I wonder why that is?
That's a different question. My point was that criticisms of DEI aren't racist unless someone wants them to be, and about the wrongness of using it - as a program - in the hiring process.
GAIf it fixes discrimination in hiring, what is wrong with it?
It's wrong. That's what's wrong with it.
GASo, your response is that it is WRONG to try to stop discrimination in hiring.
That means your solution is to continue discriminating in hiring practices and many other ways. You can't really be on both sides of the coin, can you? On the one side oppose methods to end hiring discrimination and on the other say you oppose discrimination. You either oppose discrimination or, by default, you support it.Nope, as another frequently admonishes you, you don't get to change or make up stuff I didn't say.
I did not say it is wrong to try to stop hiring discrimination. I clearly said it was wrong to use DEI programs to do it.
Maybe there's a miscommunication because of a wrong assumption. I'm assuming you understand that DEI is discriminatory in its construction but are okay with it because of the perceived 'payoff' (reducing discrimination). Am I wrong?
I also assume that you understand that DEI is an Affirmative Action-type program. Is that wrong?
GASo, you were against Affirmative Action as well, GA. What does it take to get conservatives off the pot and realize that doing nothing at all would not change practices in employment and hiring practices that deliberately discrimated against certain groups of people over decades of time.
Outside of doing absolutely nothing about it, how would you have solved the dilemma?Don't you know that one of the main beliefs of Conservatives is to maintain the status quo, to not improve things. So, if the status quo is to discriminate *which it is), the any good Conservative will oppose all efforts to end it.
I am of the opinion that you know what "implication" means, unlike others here. And I know you are a logical fellow. So follow this logic.
1. America has a long history of discrimination in hiring women and minorities, which continues today.
2. By limiting your hiring to predominately white males you end up with many situations where the most people in the upper levels of an organization are, guess what, white males.
3. By diversifying the workforce you automatically reduce discrimination.
4. The idea of DEI is to diversify the workforce with QUALIFIED people.
5. Therefore, DEI is a took to help end discrimination
6. The mere fact that opposing DEI (or any other program designed to limit discrimination IMPLIES you oppose ending discrimination.How do you know I oppose any programs or efforts to eliminate discrimination, I didn't say so. You draw an implication from something that wasn't said, that's not a good thing.
Your emphasis on "qualified" implies that you would accept minimum qualifications rather than prefer maximum qualifications. Is that implication correct?
GASo you do agree with OTHER ideas designed to end discrimination. Is that what you are saying? Can you name some or is that an empty set?
Is your objection to DEI specifically because its goal is to have a more diverse workforce, a more equitable workforce, and a more inclusive workforce?
As to the last, of course that is not correct. Qualified means qualified. If I need to improve my workforce and I have a choice between two equally qualified candidates, then I will choose one that better fills needs OTHER than qualifications for the job."If I need to improve my workforce and I have a choice between two equally qualified candidates, then I will choose one that better fills needs OTHER than qualifications for the job."
Then you are, by definition, a racist operating a business by hiring in a racist manner. As soon as race becomes a factor it becomes racist. You can pretend it is not until the end of time, but that IS the definition of racism. Using race to make choices.
And no, you cannot correct discrimination by discriminating.I don't know about " other" ideas to fight discrimination. Offer one and I'll consider whether I can agree.
Of course I don't have an answer. But that doesn't mean I should endorse a demonstratively wrong answer.
About your worker choice, what if the candidates were qualified, but not equally qualified? If one has no DEI qualifications but is 10% more capable at the required job skills—the 'qualifications,' and the other meets the qualifications bar but also has two or three DEI qualities. Which would you hire?
GAI think I specified equally.
But, if they were slightly unequal, and the minority or woman was slightly less equal, then I would go with the "greater good" theory. Not EVERYTHING is merit-based, nor should it be.
For example, if I were hiring for a specimen collector for my company, I would not choose Trump, even though he would probably be as qualified as other applicants simply because of his character (not to mention 34 felony convictions). I don't want to hire an obvious disrupter.
But that wasnt the original point of our comments, and you know it. I supposed you watched the video and read the comments. If you dont agree with them, there was no reason to jump. If you do agree with calling Kamala Harris a "dumb" "DEI hire", well, you're probably right about your membership.
True... despite why she was picked to be VP, her ability to climb the political ladder as quickly as she did in so short a time is impressive, kudos to her.
Dumb... that one she earned on her own, with some of the crazy things she has said, her insane laughing fits, but maybe that is just bad press.
So... lets see what she can articulate for her vision of America, lets hear how she plans on putting out the fires of war flaring up, how she will unify the nation, etc. etc.
Considering who she is facing... the felonious fatman Trump, this should be easy pickings, it really should be, not joking.... the country is ready for a woman President, 80% of women voters would vote for her, all she has to do is give them some hope that she is fit for the job and this should be a landslide win against Trump, the least popular President in history.So, you AGREE that Trump is Dumb with his pathological lying, his waterfall of Gaffes, and the torrent of crazy things he says. I appreciate you recognizing that
Also, now that your find the way she laughs objectionable, then you must also find Trump's stupid smirk, his orange face, and his fat belly equally objectionable.80% of female voters will vote for her, lol. Look how well that turned out for Hillary. Women aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are.
You supposed correctly, but I don't "know it." Disagreeing with the comments is the purpose of these forum discussions.
The point of the "comments" seemed to be that any reference to skin color, relative to the hiring process, is racist. It was your comment that introduced the additional "dumb" descriptor.
The start was headlined 'Hear MAGA's RACISM on full display"
The 'racist' comment I heard from the Representative was the criticism that skin color was the primary hiring factor. That is factually supported by the president's statements (as Ken provided), so I didn't read it as racist but 'you' (generic) did.
Why the difference? Because 'you' were looking for racism (or any chance to insert it) and I wasn't. A factual statement like this one isn't racist without being twisted.
The headline and the comments that followed it did the twisting.
The next relevant comment by the Representative was that DEI-driven hiring leads to mediocrity. There are plenty of valid logic arguments for that statement that have nothing to do with racism. Yet, racism was the only argument considered—even though the statement was factually supported and the logic is real-world solid (that part is an opinion, of course).
I can see plenty of opportunities for 'you' folks to aim your accusations, but they don't work without pre-determined intent to twist the words said into really meaning what you say it said.
I'll let you keep whatever assumption you have made as to whether I agree with the "dumb" part, or not.
GAThe rationalization is strong, huh.
I'll only address this one. I wont waste more time.
"any reference to skin color, relative to the hiring process, is racist."
Yes, it is. When is done as inherently negative, mediocre, etc. Just like you guys do.
I forgot about this. I should not have doubted you.It is alwaysinherently negative mediocre, etc. It is therefore always racist.
We can twist, we can squirm, we can deny, we can pretend until Hell freezes over, but it is always racist.
(I might give an exception for such things as a movie portraying a specific person; the actor should probably be the same color. Might!)"The rationalization is strong" (Shades of MyEsoteric)
I didn't mention rationalization, I spoke to logic.
Except to note that you qualified the use of skin color with how it was done (this implies you think there are times when it's okay, as long as it's not intended as a slander), there's no need to waste any more time with the Vance thing either.
GA
Does DEI necessitate the hiring of individuals who may not possess the required qualifications for a job, solely based on characteristics unrelated to job-related capabilities?
I have never seen or heard of a hiring process that required or allowed or encouraged unqualified candidates to be hired on the basis of race or sex.
Nowadays you have plenty of highly qualified candidates for most positions. I do not think companies need to compromise the quality of hire. Not sure that under any law is it necessary to hire an unqualified individual for any job, at any time.
I think that many criticisms are based on misunderstandings or false narratives about DEI.
The idea being advanced about ‘lowering the bar’ comes from an incorrect belief that a company has a high bar designed to hire the best people, and the reason it hasn’t hired more diverse people is that they aren’t able to meet that bar. But can it be the case that companies have a poorly designed hiring bar that fails to adequately evaluate highly qualified, and often diverse?
Diverse does not mean less qualified. Diversity hiring, for me, is a practice that aims to address unconscious bias in the recruitment/hiring process.You started with a wrong turn and all of your comment followed it.
The discussion point wasn't about unqualified, it was about minimally qualified. In general (fringe exceptions aside), I wouldn't say DEI forces anyone to hire unqualified candidates, but that wasn't our conversation. You spoke of the 'bar' as a minimum of qualifications. You didn't include candidates who didn't meet the bar (unqualified) and neither did I. You've changed directions.
GANot sure I understand your point. Why would any employer hire a candidate who was only minimally qualified? If I'm a hiring manager at a financial institution looking to bring on an employee and my bar is set for a business-related bachelor's degree plus 4 years experience in the specific field then why would I choose a candidate with a degree in a different specialization and fewer years of applicable experience? What would my incentive be? Unqualified, underqualified, not specifically qualified are sort of all the same reason not to hire a candidate in my mind. Don't all employers identify minimum requirements to applicants? I believe so.
That was the point. You did understand.
Only an employer who considers DEI factors would hire less than the most qualified candidate. Does Wlderness' note about the different PT test requirements for USSS agents relate to the 'lowering the bar' point?
GAY'all act like the color of the skin is the only qualification. I know I am and I think Willow is saying - that is a ridiculous point of view since that is not the way it works (and I think you know it).
It seems to me you are selling your own intelligence short if you are trying to argue that DEI is wrong because it considers no other factors, such as qualifications."Skin color" is simply the recognizable representative for any DEI criteria (someone posted the EO's list). Which is something I think you know.
By repetition, it should be clear that I view DEI-based qualifications to be 'additional (or bonus)' qualifications used to weight comparative judgments. (a fair description?)
Maybe, since I wasn't viewing skin color as you described, my intelligence is safe, for the moment. ;-)
Ga
Yes, it does.
And in the name of DEI, those who push quotas go well beyond that.
One such example is what the now resigned Secret Service Director put out that in an effort to diversify the agency, Cheatle aimed to have 30% female recruits by 2030.
"I'm very conscious as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our workforce, and particularly women," Cheatle said.
That is not basing hiring on ability, capability, and those physically best suited to do an extremely physically and psychologically demanding job.
That is hiring based on filling quotas, hiring people who would otherwise not be good enough to qualify for the position when setting the highest standards regardless of race or sex, allowing only the fittest to fill those positions.
Same goes for firefighters, Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc. etc. positions that most men are unqualified and unfit to fill... yet we water down the standards and deny reality for DEI quotas, politics and social justice antics. To the detriment of our society... and fully on display for all to see during the attempt of Trump's life.
The problem is NOT that women are put into these roles (you can throw race into that pot if you want) the problem IS that standards ARE changed to allow women into roles, period.
This IS what is done... whether it is to get women to be able to attain a Ranger Tab... or whether it is to get women to serve in the Secret Service... if the standards had been retained or RAISED from where they were prior to DEI and quotas being put out that they want 30% women hires by 2030... then no one would complain or have issue with it.
That IS the problem... we HAD opportunity and equality for all... but that wasn't getting the results wanted by the Progressive nutjobs wanting to socially experiment our way to extinction... they want Equity enforced.
This is how it should be still:
I was a female Secret Service agent. Women can do the job just as well as men.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/car … ngNewsSerp
It was hard, she had to sacrifice, she had to go beyond the norm.
That's how you get who is qualified... that is how you get the best... you don't make it easy for them... you don't set up quotas to reach.
DEI is wrong... it goes against Meritocracy, it sacrifices ability and achievement, it puts feelings and fantasy ahead of facts and reality.Who gives a crap? DEI is a GOP dog whistle term that they are trying to pin on Harris because that is what they do when they are desperate. They attack the other side without any shame. We don't know if she is qualified or not until she actually takes the position. MAGA and the GOP are trying to put her in a box and create doubt and at the same time disqualify her for running for president..
That is straight out of Trump's playbook. She already has all the delegates she needs to be nominated at the DNC. So you people are pi$$ing in the the proverbial wind.And we already know, based on past experience that Trump is clearly not qualified.
Did you notice in your link that she described the PT test that the requirements were made different for men and women, that women were not required to meet the standards that men do?
Isn't that exactly what you are talking about? Changing the standards so that women can meet the standards for the job?That has so many logic holes in it, I don't know where to start, so I won't.
"One such example is what the now resigned Secret Service Director put out that in an effort to diversify the agency, Cheatle aimed to have 30% female recruits by 2030."
From Monday's hearing...
Ms. Cheatle: “I’ve never stated that I want one-third of the Secret Service to be women.”
“I’m very conscious as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our workforce, and particularly women,”
Attracting diverse candidates to apply for the secret service and other jobs is what DEI is actually all about. It doesn't mean filling quotas of unqualified people. In reality, there are just as many qualified minorities and women to fill any position.Shame on you Willow, you shouldn't shatter their world with the TRUTH, LOL.
Except that she did state that... so I know for some people reality is what they want it to be, not what actually is, but she literally stated she wanted that... its recorded.
Yes, you are correct. She said 30 percent, not one-third. They are not equal. That is the way public figures lie under oath and get away with it. (Yes, those without morals lie, on both sides of the aisle.)
Is this America? Is this how to set the pace for 'best practice' of democracy? Without malice? And with charity for all? Criticall, no one here remember good Abbe? Democracy is all about fair play. And seriously, the discussion don't suits me again...it now stirs me observing at the edge. God save America!
And Elon Musk's fortunes keeps falling - Tesla Down.
https://www.investopedia.com/tesla-earn … tion_id%7DAll is well said. As biden exits the stage, it's now 'real' Donald Trump, and Kamala Harris. And before Trump left the White House, I was advocating for a female USA president. I post a thread in the forum to that effect, sayying that Condo Rice would be a better candidate, and president. Now Kamala? Come November. I wait.
"The Democrats have been persecuting Trump for years." If that is true and there are no reasons for it, why wasn't Bush I or II, Reagan persecuted in the same way? If it is just politics and there are no reasons for it, why just this republican and not the others?
This analysis has one fatal flaw - There is no Internationalist Wing of the Republican Party anymore, they were all kicked out by isolationist MAGA and Trump. Just like there is also no small gov't wing (meaning the gov't can't tell you what to do with your body). there is no Free-Trade wing of the party, and there is no Reagan wing of the party.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/24/politics … index.html"30% female recruits by 2030." That may be because there are more women in leadership around the world today than in the past. The secret service protects dignitaries from many countries. Even in America you may have notice an increased number of women in Congress, the Cabinet, and the higher ranks of our military. There are circumstances where any of those people might need secret service protection. The Director may have set those goals planning for the future and not just doing things as they have always been done.
And, no. We did not have opportunity and equality for all. And we don't now. Try to imagine if that hearing yesterday had been held to interrogate a man."What kind of mentally-challenged idiot picks a VP running-mate who thinks you are a sexual predator AND has said so many times."
There is a pretty small pool of candidates who don't think that about Trump any more. I guess he had to choose the least objectionable.Rep Adam Shiff ask the FBI director today at one of the hearing on the Trump rally shooting if the FBI runs background checks on people they hire. The answer was yes. So, you wouldn't hire someone with a bunch of felon convictions? Wray answered no, the FBI would not (and neither would my company). So, Shiff says, the FBI has higher standards for hiring people than the Republican Party has for nominating someone for president.
Ya gotta love it.Here's hoping America holds to higher standards. I have a great deal of faith in them. More of them have voted for someone other than Trump twice now. Don't believe he's gained followers in the meantime.
He is also a felon - a disqualifying fact for most jobs in America.
And, as you well know, 100% of the convicted felons in the US are gulty. No one in the history of your country has ever been sent to jail just because they were opposed to the ruling party.
You might want to take a look at your newest Democratic hero and find out what she did against innocents when she was a prosecutor in California too.And a sexual predator which is also a no-no EXCEPT in MAGALAND.
All these sounds more America job orient. It's like to a recruitment princple in my country, Nigeria, called Federal Character, in which every tribe or ethnic groups is taken into account in filling up vacancies. But when politics is played into it, become spoiled child.
To some here, your system is the height of discrimination rather than giving everybody equal chances.
Did you read my last paragraphy? Re-read it.
I think this would be an awesome ad for the Lincoln project to run.
Have a video of Trump giving one of his hate-filled speech full of lies with his adoring cult wildly cheering him on and then fade to Hitler giving the his stump speech with his crowd with their arms raised and then fade to Putin giving one of his lie-filled hate speeches with the masses cheering him on and then fade to President Un doing the same thing and then fade to black with the simple statement "If you are voting for Donald Trump, that is what you are voting for."Yeah... that's pretty good.
It would be better if the last image shows starving people in a concentration camp, standing behind barbed wire, really sell that messaging.
You can't be too subtle about the messaging, too many Americans these days are ignorant of history.
I also think another add should show 'bread lines', people in line waiting for food, pictures of all the homeless 'tent cities' popping up across America, blame Trump for it, say that is what he will bring to Americans if he is elected.
The point being... whether making the comparison to Hitler or whether threatening a great depression... hammer home that the absolute worst historically known tragedies will befall America with his election.
Reinforce in those impressionable minds that the Nation itself is doomed to horrors never seen before should Trump win. Make them understand Trump embodies every evil to befall humanity wrapped up in one person.This is a picture of extreme madness, one that don't befit a human being on all horizon.
But it is a picture of Trump.
You don't want to understand there is not very much difference at all between Trump, Hitler, Putin, and Un. They have the same type of personality.Trump, is a human being. But both Hitler and Putin don't qualify as humans.
How is Trump any more human than any of the other three? His greatest legacy is being responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans to Covid and for attempting to destroy American democracy.
Okay, well said. But let me ask a question. And. I've read you said something against Trump against the 'covid' deaths in America before. Now here's the question: in which country did the covid deaths began and spread? America or China? Which country start to close her international borders? America or China? By the time the UN WHO declared covid an international intervention design, how many deaths have occured in America and China respectively? Than you tell me who is less human, Trump or Xi. Hitler, as dictator, is killing humans as if they're mosquitoes. Whether they're Jews, Polish, Russians, and so on for world dominion.
Your questions don't address how Trump responded to or didn't respond to Covid in America. In total, his actions/inactions led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and what is worse, he knew better because he said so on more than one occasion.
Yes, Hitler did that but all that does is make him worse that the others. That doesn't take away from the fact that all four are the same type of authoritarian personality who don't really care what they do to other human beings.
Who is to say that Trump, when he puts all the illegals in concentration camps as he has promised to do, won't take the next step as Hitler did? At some point in time, I would not be surprised if he didn't propose that non-citizen Hispanics wear some sort of symbol like the Star of David to identify who they are.
Hitler was a dictator
Putin and Un are dictators
Trump says he wants to be a dictator.
And what is your qualification for humans?
This sentence could be made by Hitler himself. Only he would talk about Jews.
To dehumanize somebody is stupid. (there is another word for it, racist or fascist perhaps, but I hope you understand the mistake you made)
Hitler and Putin and Stalin and Marilyn Monroe were all humans.Okay. What does Hitler and Putin think qualify Stalin and Moreo, as human beings?
?
They speak a language, they walk on two legs. They have rituals and take part in a culture based on abstract ideas. They use tools, They are capable of understanding abstract concepts like map reading or metaphors. They understand the concept of mathematics. Are self aware and recognize themselves when they look in the mirror. They give things and people names (this is an abstract concept as well). and the list goes on.
Why did you classify them as not being human?As a cute FYI, a recent study (Kenya 2024) says elephants also use/recognize names and identities.
GAThen Trump is human alright? But what do Trump did that he was being label a Devil? For the answer to your question, read my last post to MyExo.
Of course Trump is human.
I have not read anything about Trump being the devil. (and when people say this it is most of the time not literally)
But you said:
¨Trump, is a human being. But both Hitler and Putin don't qualify as humans.¨
You did not answer this question. Not to me and not to My Esoteric.
Why are Putin and Hitler not humans?Okay. If Hitler or Putin is human, could they killed fellow humans running into the millions? My wife is around and I ask her a similar question and she credit me as not being human, had I act in Hitler or Putin capacity. But MyExo is imputing the thousands of deaths (?) that occured under the Trump goverment as being an Hitler, a Putin, a Stanlin, and so on! D' you see it? Do I answered your qeustion satisfactorily? Thank you.
(I confess, I did call Trump the devil, but your are right, not literarily, he just acts like one.)
Is JD Vance going to become another Sarah Palin, who made a great man and hero look dumb? In this case, will Vance make an already dumb felon look even worse?
He is well on his way. Not too long ago Vance let his misogyny show by telling a fellow misogynist this "the United States was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”"
Given who he is, there are a thousand more like this and he will make a thousand more in the next three months.
This, of course, won't make a dent with his MAGA core, most of whom (females included) feel the same way, but it should turn of a lot of thinking women.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/entertai … index.htmlI must congratulate you on you observation. I'm afraid it is wrong..
Thank you, but in what way am I wrong?
Aren't all four dangerous demagogues?
Aren't all four autocrats and dictators (or wanna be)?
Aren't all four hyper-narcissistic?
Aren't all four dangerously mentally ill?
Aren't all four only interested in themselves at the expense of anybody else?
Haven't all four picked on one group to single out as "poisoning the blood" of the majority?
Haven't all four developed a cult of personality and effectively brainwashed their cult members?
As he pats them nicely on the head and scratches them behind the ear, he tells HIS Christians that they won't have to vote anymore once they re-elect him.
Now why would that be? Their is only one reason, there will be no more voting once he trashes the Constitution and turns America into a Russian or Chinese-style dictatorship and he passes on the presidency to his sons (like the Kims are doing in North Korea).
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/27/politics … -nr-digvidYes, Trump is an autocrat. His only motive is enrichment of his own family. That's his only motive.
Autocrats by nature hate democracies and love fellow autocrats. That's why Trump understands Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim.
The idea of a democracy is dangerous to them.
One of the reasons Putin attacked Ukraine was because Ukraine became an independent democracy. As Ukraine has strong family relations and otherwise with Rusia, the concept of a democracy could spread to Russia as well and would be a threat to the autocracy of Putin.
Trump will allow Ukraine to fall. And if Russia can take Ukraine without consequences, China will see it as a green light to take Taiwan.
Same reason. Taiwan is to democratic for China.
If Trump wins, this will give authoritarian states all over the world the green light. It will become an incredibly dangerous unstable world.
Recent post from Bandy X Lee, MD, MDiv
Donald Trump is likely afraid of debating Kamala Harris for several reasons:
1. His unfitness, cognitive problems, and senility will stand out starkly.
2. He cannot bully so easily a former prosecutor, accustomed to felons like he.
3. He will be exposed for being a mouse.
(Bandy is the psychologist, along with 30+ others, who identified Trump as being dangerously mentally ill in their 2015 book.)It's difficult to imagine caring any less what a fake psychologist, without ethical standards, has to say about anything at all. He would carry more credence were he to give a discussion on why we should repair potholes in a timely manner.
All bets are on though, that Trump will cover the gauntlet of excuses for not showing up for the planned debate.
The ABC one (which I hear they are still planning on holding)?
There are enough good polls in to say that besides pulling in huge amounts of donations and volunteers, she has pulled to within the margin of error for the General Election, AZ, and PA (which Biden was clearly losing) while drawing even with Trump in WI.
Ah, so that is your MO - trash anyone who you disagree with and call them names.
Whether Trump will courageously show up during the debate will tell. With the accusation of felon, sexual assault, and so on against him, why did Trump show up in the Courts against her fellow prosecutors? The point is that nothing good will be said about Trump.
Why do you minimize his crimes by calling them "accusations"?? He was convicted in a court of law, there is no "accusations" about it, is there?
The real point is that there IS nothing good to say about Trump. All you can truthfully say is that he is a CONVICTED Felon, 34 times over, that he as FOUND GUILTY of Sexual Abuse by a jury, that he was FOUND GUILTY by a judge of Bank Fraud, and that he is a pathological liar.
THAT is the kind of man you have chosen to defend.I'm sorry that I unknowly use the word 'accusation'. It's 'conviction', right? And in spite of that, Trump appeared boldly to met Kamala Harris' fellow tough prosecutors, tough judges, and juris, and accusers! Whether I'm defending him or not, one thing is clear...Trump is BOLD. That's my point.
Yes, Trump is bold. He is also savvy. As a businessperson, he knew what was best for America & implemented it.
He was (and is) a terrible business person and it showed during is unfortunate 4 years in office.
Keep in mind, 1) he inherited his wealth, [u]he did not earn it[/b], 2) what wealth he did earn was from selling his name, 3) any real business he started went bankrupt more often than not, 4) he defrauded countless innocent people who trusted him, and 5) ripped off contractors and employees to the tune of millions of dollars.
Personally, I don't consider that "successful". If you want to show me a successful businessman bring up Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett and not another Bernie Madoff.
I will give you that, Trump is bold. To bad he misuses that trait to the detriment of America. We do not need that type "bold" here, it is destructive.
And how is that "my" trouble? What does that even mean?
Sorry if you don't ever understand. And I can't even held it.
We are back to - what does that even mean?
Sorry again. If you can't understand, what can I do? I say again I can't help it. Do we go in viral circle?
And, as you well know, there have been numerous fake convictions in the US. It has happened because of skin color, because of being against the ruling party, and sometimes just because a person was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being persecuted because of your beliefs says nothing. Well, I guess it does say something about those doing the persecuting.What percentage of wrongful convictions have there been of wealthy white men? A 1/10%, a 1/4%, maybe as high as a 1/2%? And then, how often does the same wealthy white man get wrongfully convicted multiple times by different juries and judges? Come on, get real.
How was Trump prosecuted for his "beliefs"??? He has no "beliefs" that last more than a day.That is like asking how many innocent people are in jail. How does anyone know? If you do not have DNA evidence that you did not commit the crime you can be convicted.
Even you and Biden have beliefs. The fact that you feel that someone who does not agree with you has no beliefs indicates a serious case of TDS. Have you consulted a mental health professional about this?You research it if you are going to make the claim. The data is there.
Yes, we have beliefs - but they are long lasting. With Trump, I am sure you would agree, his "beliefs" last only as long as the next transaction.
Answer me this - since I did say Trump has beliefs (they just don't last very long) how can you turn around and make the False claim that I said Trump had no beliefs. I am not sure I am the one who needs professional help.
Also, your conclusion is wrong, since I do say that Trump has short-lived "beliefs" then that means I do not have TDS, but only a clear-eyed view of what Trump is - an evil person who is a convicted felon, a sexual abuser, and a pathological liar like his followers must be in order to support him.No valid data is there. The fact that you believe everything you read is unfortunate.
Point taken on your comment on the beliefs.Yes, I agree that was not your exact statement. It looks like you have managed to copy the SS director when she said "I never said one-third" which is true, as she said 30 percent.Yes there is, all you have to do is look. The fact that you won't says something.
As to reading, couldn't I hurl the same insult back at you?
Even you you apology, you still make a false statement. My statement was clear and unequivocal - "He has no 'beliefs' that last more than a day". That can mean only ONE thing - that Trump has 'beliefs'. That is nothing like the twist you and other Conservatives give to the SS directors statement.Are you really so naiive that you believe that she did not say that she was going to recruit 30 percent women to the SS by 2030, or do you prefer to believe whatever lies they tell you? Politicians on both sides lie and I would think you were old enough to understand that.
The latest lie? Kamala was never the border Czar."The latest lie? Kamala was never the border Czar."
Are you able to provide backing for this statement? When was she appointed? Including the exact title of czar. And what were the listed responsibilities or duties? Certainly the act of being named "border czar," would have been covered extensively.
I can plainly see that the border work tasked to her were diplomatic efforts addressing the root causes of migration from three countries... Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.Ever since 2021, since her trip to central America, the MSM has called her that. Now, when it is apparant that things are a mess, they claim she was never in charge. Funny how you extremists all ignore the facts.
"Funny how you extremists all ignore the facts"
What facts? Facts have not been provided. I'm asking for proof with citation that Biden appointed her to a position other than diplomacy and uncovering root causes of migration from three countries. Please detail the position she was appointed to by Biden and list its responsibilities. I don't care what the media anointed her. That's meaningless.Oh, you mean like this?:
https://twitter.com/WarlordDilley/statu … 4055707064
Where Biden literally spells it out, in a news conference?
Or this?
Action the Biden-Harris Administration Has Taken to Address the Border Challenge
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … challenge/
Official White House release... don't know if they matter any...
https://apnews.com/general-news-3400f56 … ce1aa6b8e9
Or when the AP reports about it?
I don't know what rules we are going by here... if it actually occurred and we can show video and written proof? Is that admissible? Or is it only if you want to accept them... is this like, if you feel like you are a non-binary gender-fluid we/us/it then that is what we have to accept as real, because its your reality we are basing things off of?Those extremists could look it up but they do not since they do not want to know the truth. That person has all of the facts already and will not even appreciate all of your work.
I did appreciate his work because it was what I had already posted...the White House document that defines the role Biden appointed Harris to. I appreciate that he confirmed my previous posting.
So, you do agree that he supported Willow's point that Harris was not hired as a "Czar" of anything. Thank you.
I find it a very interesting long running 'proof of theory'...
This very long forum thread is evidence of how self-delusion works, how like-minded individuals echo one another's thoughts in re-affirming fashion, reserving visceral rejection for any source of information that shows otherwise.
Politics for some people absolutely attains faith... cult... status with insights into how semi isolated cultures produce extreme (insane) results like the Salem Witch Trials. Or how entire states can be twisted up in extremist propaganda as evidenced in Germany in the 30s.
We are living through times, where the long running and immense effort to propagate a web of lies on the entire populace begins to collapse and falter...
Many of the lies that we were forced to accept, going back to assassinations in the 60s of JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. where combined government/media efforts were made to convince the American public of lies and false investigations results.
That has been put on steroids in recent years, with fabricated dossiers created to frame incoming Presidents, Impeachment efforts made on a President for trying to investigate a corrupt government official, court cases where laws and statutes and precedence are ignored or violated to get guilty verdicts on political rivals...
The cover up of a man with dementia, to maintain control illegally of our government, a failed assassination attempt, which they soon will be trying to convince you was fake, or fabricated by Trump...
Etc., etc. it is getting harder and harder for any but the insane, or those fully devoted to believing... to the cult... not to see how badly things are going, how awful our current 'leadership' is.If you are talking about my side, we all "echo" similar thoughts because our information comes from the REAL WORLD and are true.
Can't say where your side gets theirs other then echo chambers like Lying Fox News.
Her role ? What she was actually appointed to do by President Biden.
From your white house source...
"President Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the White House effort to tackle the migration challenge at the U.S. southern border and work with Central American nations to address root causes of the problem."
This is a far cry from being in charge of the border. My reality? It is what Biden actually appointed her to do, not mashups of media stories. He never appointed her " border czar"
Biden tasked Harris with working alongside officials in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to address the issues driving people to leave those countries and come to the United States. She was to tackle the issue of immigration causes, not border security.
It was MAGA who gave her the title of Czar and right wing media picked it up and ran with it.
If you have any fact that shows she was given responsibility for anything other than determining root causes of immigration, please provide it.CNN is Left-wing and Democrat. What did it say agaist the MAGA spin? Critically, did cnn debunk the Right-wing media circulation, of the 'Border Czar' scenario?
Isn't that just your right-wing biased opinion that is unsupported by any evidence.
I suspect that any media outlet that believes in the freedom of speech is considered so-called "left-wing".
Isn't any media outlet that reports the TRUTH about felon and sexual predator Trump considered so-called "left-wing"? I just call it reporting the facts.
I read and/or hear CNN debunk lies from the Right-Wing media all the time - mainly from Lying Fox "News".
In fact, even Lying Fox "News" reported that CNN debunked the so-called "border czar" BS from the right. I can imagine the cynicism and additional lies in their report.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6359250655112MyExo again. I was curious, and I should ask questions. Isn't it? What's your trouble again?
I don't understand why you posted things that support what we said and show what you say to be false (other than the one from the right-wing extremist propaganda outfit called CBN "News" and X/)
Doesn't that sound counter-productive?
Funny how you project yourself on to others.
See what I mean about you believing everything lying Trump says? Your comment about czar is proof enough of that. How was she a so-called "czar". Do you even know what she was assigned to do regarding trying to limit the number of people coming to our border? Maybe it is that you resent/disapprove of her even trying. Is that it?
And what is wrong with making sure your recruiting pool meets certain standards? I realize you only want white males in the recruiting pool, but that isn't real life (and neither is the fantasy world of Trump you chose to believe in)Why are you opposed to a meritocracy? Why are ranting about white males? Have you taken a look in the mirror lately?
"I never said one third"
You have taken a few words from her entire statement, out of context. What about the rest of what she stated?
Cheatle said last year that she plans to have 30 percent female recruits by 2030, in an interview with CBS News.
A "recruit" is a candidate. A "hire" is a candidate who has been selected for employment.
She testified..
"I'm very conscious as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our workforce, and particularly women,"
She is talking about recruiting. She's talking about the opportunity to be considered. Not quotas.
Here is another example of how despicably transactional the pathological liar, felon, and sex abuser Trump is. Previously, he made, appropriately so IMO, a big deal about how bad crypto-currency can be. Now, he is chasing their dollars (real ones, not fake ones) and praising them to high heaven (and HIS Christians probably).
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/27/politics … index.htmlThe TRUTH about Donald J. Trump -
"Harris spokesperson James Singer issued a statement on what the campaign called “Trump’s strange speech.”
“Tonight, Donald Trump couldn’t pronounce words, insulted the faith of Jewish and Catholic Americans, lied about the election (again), lied about other stuff, bragged about repealing Roe, proposed cutting billions in education funding, announced he would appoint more extremist judges, revealed he planned to fill a second Trump term with more criminals like himself, attacked lawful voting, went on and on and on, and generally sounded like someone you wouldn’t want to sit near at a restaurant — let alone be President of the United States,” Singer said.
“America can do better than the bitter, bizarre, and backward looking delusions of criminal Donald Trump. Vice President"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … b7b0a90a39It's a fair level politics play. Both sides are making counter, and bizzar claims, and remarks.
Fareed is right Biden DID provide security abroad and sanity at home. Trump did just the opposite.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/28/politics … ics-digvidBottom line: Being VP is like being in witness protection. The top of the ticket really doesn't want anybody to know you are there once the election is over. You are the ultimate Bridesmaid-Never the Bride.
And yet, VPs like Cheney and Biden were running all around the world getting things done and making things happen...
Sometimes you get highly qualified and connected VPs that get things done, like Bush Sr, when he was Reagan's VP.
Sometimes you get brain dead VPs that need to be put in witness protection so they don't remind the rest of the world how ignorant some of our politicians can be... like Dan Quayle and Kamala Harris.Clip and save this - Ken just said that Biden ran all around the world and got things done and made things happen.
I suspect Harris will be one of more effect presidents ever.
This says it all about the Pathological Lying, Mentally Ill, Felon, and Sexual Predator Trump.
Trump blew up the Iran nuclear deal (and as a result, Iran is a couple of weeks away from getting what the deal stopped which makes Trump a friend to Iran), withdrew us from the Paris Climate Agreement, slashed access to food stamps, gave huge tax cuts to wealthy corporations and individuals (who kept it), separated children from their families at the border, suggested curing Covid with bleach or bright lights, SUMMONED AN INSURRECTION, and put three Justices on the Supreme Court in order to overturn a basic human right, Roe v. Wade. TRUMP DID ENOUGH DAMAGE HIS FIRST TERM, we won't survive a second."savvy" and "swarmy" are not the same thing. What exactly did he implement that was best for America? Best for him is more like it. Have you forgotten how much money he and his family made off of us in just four years?
I never knew. How much, and how much the previous four years? I other words, did it go up when he was President?
That's just money coming from his presidency, right? Not from normal business income for him?
Fact check: Trump revives false claim that he, not Minnesota’s governor, deployed the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020
Will Trump EVER stop lying about big things such as Covid or small things such as this? Will MAGA EVER stop believing those lies?
The answer is NO. Trump is a pathological liar and there are a lot of people (like those who watch Lying Fox News) who want to be lied to.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/28/politics … index.htmlEsoteric does not believe Trump.
Esoteric believes Kamala?That would be true. Trump is a pathologically liar, along with being a felon and sexual predator.
Kamala, on the other hand is NOT a felon, is NOT a sexual predator, and lies no more than normal politicians do.You finally realized she is a liar? I am amazed.
You are the one that stated that Kamala is a liar. If you do not understand that go back and read your comment. It is all about the passage of time? The significance of the passage fo time is that the passage of time is signficant. It is all about reading your past comments, as your past comments are all about reading.
Actually, the real beasts are within the Democrat circle.
And again you talk in riddles. There are no beasts in "Democrat circle". There is only the pathological liar, serial felon, and sexual predator you wish to be our president. What did America do to you to make you hate us so much?
What 'riddle(s)'? You're persistently asseting Trump as liar. But a while ago acknowledge Kamala Harris as giving into lieing too. What difference does that made between hers and that of Trump? Even biden lied during the last debate. And you're acknowledging that but condemned ONLY TRUMP! And what me hate America, God's own country? When America blessed me with the Bible? I'm only try to see things the way God would. I love America period.
In English, there is a difference between a pathological liar like Trump and normal lies like you or I tell. If you aren't willing or able to understand how different those two concepts are from each other, then there is nothing to talk about.
America blessed you with the Bible??????? Wasn't that the Jews or are you denying that they didn't write the Bible as well?When I say America, I mean America and not Jew! Those Bible Ministers fleeing from Roman Catholic Popes hundreds of years ago, safely landed in America, with the Bible, not the Koran or Torah. Seriously, America, a country very liberal with religion massively print the Bible, and send it round the world, to every country, even to Israel! That you understand? Critically, the Jew, have no Bible, and don't write it. They wrote and owe the Torah or Law. That's their Bible! I don't want to go about the New Testament, a collections, in the Bible here.
The difference is the type of lying, the magnitude of the lies, and the amount of lies. Trump has lied and misinformed over 30,000 documented times in his four years in office and has continued to lie even today.
In the interview with the black journalist yesterday, he couldn't even answer legitimate questions. He kept reverting back to his narrative about how millions of migrants crossing the border are going to take over the black people's jobs. Trump is a one trick pony who has nothing new to say. He lies and exaggerates in his rallies, interviews, and debates. This is yesterday's interview.
https://www.youtube.com/live/yjN5dvDTea … fpYT6OxN-sHmmm. 30,000 "lies". Meaning 29,800 typical politician exaggerations, opinions and misdirection's. Plus 195 errors and 5 intentional falsehoods.
Not bad for 8 years of political effort.Even IF you were correct that his lies were innocent political lies, that record should embarrass any supporter. unless that is how they gauged competency by, the more lies of any sort they tell, the better president they are.
But they are not JUST political lies (which he tells as well), are they? He tells DEADLY lies. You know, the ones that get people killed, maimed, injured, assaulted, and exploited.The lies "that get people killed, maimed, injured, assaulted, and exploited."
Which are these?The 2020 election was Stolen he lies, come to the Capitol to fight like hell to take your country back. Hundreds of police were maimed or injured and 2000 believers are in jail.
How about, Covid is no big deal, it will go away soon. Then a million people died from Covid that didn't go away and who, because they believed Trump, did nothing because he wouldn't lie to them.
If it doesn't drink some bleach (implied).
How did you find that data, wilderness? Great comeback ...
as if it matters.
It's interesting, first you changed the focus from Trump and then you try to apply it to all politicians without any specific times, names, or places. Then you give some figures about Trump about the number of errors he has made and false hoods without any facts for any of that. You just made it up on the spot. Then you don't even comment on the interview, where they were fact checking his every word in real time.
PP, if you can't catch an awful lot of politicians exaggerating, making promises they know they can't fulfill, ignoring the question to go off on a tangent...if you can't do these things you have absolutely no business calling Trump a liar.
Of course those numbers were made up! I haven't checked every word Trump has uttered for 8 years in the hopes of catching something I could call a "lie".
I didn't comment on the interview, either. I commented on the absolutely ridiculous statement that Trump has made 30,000 lies.Wilderness: We all know why you didn't watch the YouTube interview because you can't handle the truth. If did, you would have seen Trump in action, your faith in him would come crashing down like a house of cards.
You also said you didn't watch Jan.6, but you certainly had a lot of opinions about it to downplay it and support Trump. Again, you can't handle the truth, neither can Trump because even to this day, he has convinced himself and his supporters that he did win the election.For your dining and dancing pleasure;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … our-years/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … _manual_10Good to note this. But where are the database of biden, Kamala? It's only falsehood about Trump?
Search Politifact.
But in the meantime, Forbes came up with this about the first 100 days in office.
In his first 100 days, President Trump had 29 statements assessed by PolitiFact (17 false) compared to 12 statements from President Obama (1 false) and 4 statements from President Biden (2 false). As a raw count, Trump told more falsehoods than Biden and Obama combined.
Let's extrapolate that out to the per four year totals (keep in mind that Trump's rate of lying picked up the longer he was in office and was not held accountable for his lies.)
Days in a year - 365
Days in four years - 1,460
Lies per day.
Obama - ..01
Trump - .17
Biden - .02
Lies per year:
Obama - 15
Trump - 248 (the fact that it exceeds 30,000 should tell you how much his lying increased.
Biden - 30
Now, not taking into account how dangerous to life and limb some of those lies are, we easily see that Trump lies, at a minimum, 17 times more often than Obama and 8.5 times more often than Biden
But, to understand what those metrics mean, it is necessary to appreciate that if the first person is telling a lot more lies than the second person, then the first person is judged much worse than the second person.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you say in another comment that you see no relative difference in quality between a person who lies only one time in their lifetime and a person like Trump who lies at the drop of a hat? Do you hold yourself to that standard? That because you have told at least one lie at some point in time, that you are as bad as Trump is?
Then, next question - what did each lie about?
Finally, what did each president lie about during their first 100 days as president? Biden’s false statements discussed the minimum wage and immigration patterns in the US. Trump, on the other hand, falsely discussed US murder rates, immigration and refugees, and that he didn’t know Steve Bannon before his presidential campaign. Finally, Obama’s false statement concerned US math education trends.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarko … -or-obama/https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
TRUMP - 23% True vs 77% False (From Trump's Website
https://www.politifact.com/article/2017 … er-scorec/
OBAMA - 75% True vs 25% False
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/
BIDEN - 57% True vs 43% False
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/kamala-harris/
HARRIS - 55% True vs 45% False
NOW, are you going to write me with a straight face and tell me that Trump is no demonstrably worse than either Harris, Biden, or Obama?Yes, Biden occasionally tells a lie. Trump is a pathological liar.
But, you answered my question; you choose not to recognize differences - a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer and therefore the murderer should get the same punishment as the jaywalker.
Biden/Harris tell occasional lies but Trump is a pathological liar; but in your view, the voter should see no difference between them. I get it.Yes, a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer. And yes too, the voter should discretedly differentiated the potential candidates. Made a choose decide wisely. I'm always in favour of such issues. While lieing daily or occasionally, what good is in that? And how d' you equate that with stealing, and so on? They're all bad.
Don't be ridiculous,
There is such a thing as magnitude of offenses and crimes and that always has to be taken into consideration.So if I told a single lie...while being bench pressed, you think the Judge must acquit me? That rarelly happen even for first offenders.
What does a judge have to do with it? Aren't we talking about someone's fitness for office?
No matter how the magnitude of crimes and offences are, a single lie can stain the soul and break the contry. Nigeria, is an example. The present President Bola Ahmend Tinubu(BAT) while on his presidential campaign promised all workers: 'I will give you a living wage'. The workers under they umbrella, ask that he made the promise good. His refusal has resulted into the present 'August Protest' against hunger in the midst of food security! Just a single lie? People are looting, markets, and shops are closed on day one. One young man was catch yesterday and had one of his leg chop off! All just one piece of lie?
Again what? The only thing, the one and only thing you like to understand is that Trump, is a 'pathological' liar...and which you want me and the otherrs here to accept. Critically and humanly, I can't wear this garment you woven about Trump. It doesn't befit a character like me.
I understand it because it is the TRUTH, which you, for some odd reason, don't seem to understand. Also the TRUTH is that he is a convicted felon, 34 times over so far and is a convicted sexual predator.
What is it that is not getting through to you in your unreasonable defense of an evil man. Is it you like evil men? Wouldn't that be the only explanation?I associated only with good men and people or I stand alone. Honestly, I work in the Ministry Of Justice for 25 years, and am looking at things within the armbit of the law. And also within the natural rights of man.
Then why aren't you standing alone because Trump is clearly an evil man. That would be especially true if you worked in Justice for all those years given Trump's many convictions, both civil and criminal, as well as settling hundreds of lawsuits brought against him by individuals for fraud all over the country; that is almost always an admission of guilt unless you don't have the resources to continue to trial.
I presume sexual battery, fraud, and defamation are all punishable acts in your country.
You are doing exactly what Trump supporters do when they get caught in a situation they can't get out of. They say what about...? Did it occur to you that there is no Biden database because Biden doesn't lie like Trump does. Do you think every president lies over 30,000 times while in office? Trump is a pathological liar.
With all due respect, you don't live in this country and know what goes on in a daily basis. Your comments are just generalizations without any specifics. You can't possible know about Trump the way we do because you don't live here. Just like I can't know what goes on in a daily basis in Nigeria. I know you are a highly educated person, so you will understand what I'm saying.
Also, with all due respect . . . His "generalizations" (as I have read them) have always seemed to be to a point of the discussion, and with a validity that didn't depend on being able to 'understand' a partisan view.
GAWith all due respect, these forums are about partisan differences. This is one of his latest comments after I presented the data base that shows Trump lied for over 30,000 times as president. My reply was there is no database for Biden or Kamala, because they didn't lie over 30,000 times.
Good to note this. But where are the database of biden, Kamala? It's only falsehood about Trump?These forums are about a lot of things, partisan differences is only one of them.
My response was to this: "Your comments are just generalizations without any specifics. You can't possible know about Trump the way we do because you don't live here."
There aren't any cushions, like; 'With all due respect.' that can remove the connotation of . . .
GAGA: With all due respect, I have noticed your comments are generally about judging other people's comments like a referee, but not getting deep into the mud yourself. You always seem to be on the sideline looking in from my perspective. I suspect you were some sort of a teacher in your other life.
Mike
I would say that those outside of America probably get a much better perspective of what is really going on, in America and the world.
I remember decades ago, when in Israel briefly, Israeli channels had news from local sites, European sites, Russian sites, it was quite interesting to see so much information... much of which was never reported in America.
Today we have the internet, and for the moment, if you know how to use a Search engine well enough, you can find just about anything.
If you rely on American Main Stream Media to tell you factual information about what is going on and why... or worse, only a segment of it, like NPR, CNN, and the NY Times... because in your opinion they are the only ones that provide 'true' information...
Well, I hate to break it to you, but you are probably one of the more ignorant people walking the planet today, and the only thing you are doing is regurgitating the information the State has put out that it wants you to know and share.
Let me give you an example of someone with a ton of real world experience, who has done plenty for our government and travels outside the US on a regular basis... this is REAL information... a REAL opinion based off of experience and intelligence... not state sponsored messaging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQkbmmLLkE
These are very real times we are dealing with... we are in the midst of America becoming something worse than Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China.
I'm not sure there is any way to save America. AI partnered with the most powerful State intelligence agency network in the world, combined with the most powerful and corrupt people in the world (Donor Class).
But this Administration, this particular President and VP, are the most incompetent and incapable to ever hold the office... which is why the world is so quickly sinking into chaos more than any other reason.
America abdicated its logic and leadership on the global stage, right now Russia, China, even Iran for all the evil they support are playing us for fools... which is easy to do when you have a bunch of fools running the country.Ken: I hate to break it to you, but your video shows a former Fox News host who was fired for sexual harassment much like Trump and a Lieutenant Colonel Anthony A. Shaffer who was stripped of his security clearances and removed as leader from the Able Danger program for providing false information about the 911 terrorist attack. You see unlike you I do my research. I don't accept anything on face value, especially when it comes from Fox and MAGA news junkies.
https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/judge- … 235033101/
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Aug/16/2 … 17-PWH.PDFI applaud you for dipping your toe into UNREAL propaganda that YouTube piece was. I do agree that it was REAL opinion, but it was FAKE news.
It does seem like the more he tries to defend Trump and trash America, he is slipping deeper and deeper beneath waves into a world of make-believe. As an example, trying to make-believe that our independent news agencies are an extension of the federal gov't much like they are in his country.You are hysterical man, truly.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HDEA5HBo5_cYou should know by now I don't waste my time with Russian propaganda.
Accept it - once again, you are projecting yourself onto me.
Very impressive, I'm sure that wasn't the top google search item on Col Shaffer.
So, you think that discredits him?
You see right in the document you provided, the man has WORLDS more experience in the inner workings of government and foreign affairs than 99.99% of the rest of Americans...
And therefore, I shouldn't consider his information and insight?
Who am I supposed to listen to, some d!p Sh!t talking head on MSNBC who has no clue what is going on other than if his nose got powdered for the camera?
A walking muppet of the Biden Administration as they mumble a bunch of nonsensical idiocy that has no context to reality?
Having spent a day or two in uniform myself, I think I'll give more consideration to what the guy who has gone further down that dark road than I have, has to say on matters.No you can listen to whomever you want to. I'm saying I'm not accepting either one of those people as reliable sources.
You should continue to listen to Fox and MAGA news that is owned by Rupert Murdoch who modeled Fox after The New York Post which is tied to sensationalism to sell more ads.
Of course, he also has bimbos sitting in couches with their skirts hiked up so you can get a glimpse of their who, whos. That's why Napolitano was fired for sexual harassment. The temptation was too much. Or how about Steve Bannon who is now serving time for thinking he is above the law?
Or Hannity and Mark Levin who are both mouth pieces for Trump. Or even better Tucker Carlson who caused Murdoch to settle out of court for millions of dollars on the Dominion voter machine fiasco and met with Putin.
Did you know that Hannity started as a bar tender? You may not like MSM, but at least they have credited journalist. I don't listen to the talking heads on MSM or Fox for your information. If you don't believe what I have posted, I can provide links to everyone of my statements.
What? No database available about biden lie(s)? That's odd. But who here else produce those statistics about the 'real' Trump(et), Obama(sounds like don't kill him, in my Ijaw dialect), Biden, and Kamala? I don't know which American president lied 30,000 times more than Trump, though the information is viral. Now my question is: Has Trump been benched pressed about it? He should be. Then good for everyone.
Wilderness! Did you watch the video?!
*I know, I know, just butting in . . . but hey, when you leave a door open like that . . . I'm sorry. I'll butt out now. ;-)
GATwo years ago Harris was the butt of everyone's jokes, across the spectrum of parties and politics.
Today she is the greatest thing to walk the planet.
Its truly amazing to see. Gives new meaning to the term 'sheeple'.
For your enjoyment, the first was made years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TuBMileBzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au6xtj6CBew"Sheeple" . . . C'mon Ken.
As for my viewing enjoyment, this one works: Classic Stossel: What People REALLY Vote For
GADidn't the same thing happen to Trump (although he is still the butt of a lot of jokes)
You have been presented the evidence countless times. But that simply does not appear to matter to you, only defending the indefensible.
Yes I have been presented evidence. Evidence that the presenter is very happy to swallow gross exaggerations, badly spun rhetoric and outright lies about what Trump said or meant. I have seen many with personal crystal balls that know what Trump is thinking, and even more that will swear upon the bible that an honest mistake is a lie.
That's that way of politics, and doubly so for those with TDS.So believing that he won the election on Jan.6 was just an honest mistake? Taking highly classified documents that are detrimental to the security of this nation and storing them in his bathroom and on his stage at his house is just an honest mistake? Threating the Georgia Secretary of State to find just 10,750 more votes or things would really turn bad for him is just an honest mistake? Having his henchmen threaten honest ballot counters with their lives in just an honest mistake?...Do you want me to go on, because I can?
Actually, yes. I think Trump was honestly convinced of voter fraud, and that without it he would have won. Just an opinion, for I do not have the crystal ball that reads minds like the liberals do.
Won't directly address the rest of your silly list except to say that exaggeration and mind reading is a wonderful combination.Then you present another reason why Trump is unfit for office besides being a sexual predator and being a serial felon and being a pathological liar - mental incompetence.
The ONLY reason Trump would believe voter fraud cost him the election is if he is seriously delusional, which disqualifies him.
He apparently has you falling for his deception that fellow mafia boss, Vincent Gigante made famous (except Trump doesn't walk around in a bathrobe).
In any case, there is plenty of publicly available evidence and testimony that Trump told people he knows he didn't win.There is just one problem with all that nonsense.
There was voter fraud (or other wrongdoings - label it however you wish). You can start with completely incompetent handling of mail in ballots that were never truly vetted. Then you can go to states performing illegal actions by their own laws.
Oh yes, there was a LOT of wrongdoing during that election. Not enough (IMO) to change the race, but then I could easily be wrong."There was voter fraud" - Don't just say it, PROVE it! The bar, of course is that it would have had to change the election outcome.
"Oh yes, there was a LOT of wrongdoing during that election. " - Don't just say it, PROVE it!
"You can start with completely incompetent handling of mail in ballots that were never truly vetted." - Don't just say it, PROVE it!
"Then you can go to states performing illegal actions by their own laws. " - Don't just say it, PROVE it!
IF you can't prove it, then please label your claims as your unsupported opinion.
The correct claim is that there was a LITTLE of wrongdoing during that election. In the cases that went to court, virtually ALL of them were by Republicans, ROFL.I'll help you out...
2020 Election Fraud - Part I - Forgotten History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvChedzm2vAJust as I though it would be, a recitation of most of Trump and Giuliani's DEBUNKED conspiracy theories.
Please provide REAL evidence such as that which was presented in and accepted by the dozens of courts that found Trump's claims FALSE.Its everywhere, being discussed by everyone...
Only those who isolate themselves in a bubble of protected information...
think otherwise.
https://twitter.com/hodgetwins/status/1 … 9328081201No, only in your conspiracy world is it being discussed.
I understand you don't believe in our Justice system, but judges and juries EVERYWHERE call you opinion BUNK.
It was proven. In, I believe, Pennsylvania re: mail in ballots when they were counted long after the legal date for it. There were other problems as well, whether you like to admit it or not, whether you can "remember" them or not.
There was also a major (IMO, although not yours for it resulted in Democrat votes) problem in the way mail in ballots were sent out. Willy nilly, without any effort to verify recipients or addresses. I get the Pandemic was rampant, but that is not (again, IMO but not yours) to simply set aside any election security.
"The correct claim is that there was a LITTLE of wrongdoing during that election."
I do believe that was implied in my post - I DID say that IMO there was not enough to make a difference, which is pretty much the same thing. If you would stop trying so hard to denigrate others and put words in their mouths your discussions would have a lot more value. Of course one must recognize that LITTLE and LOT are relative terms, not absolute and react accordingly. There was a LOT of wrong doing, but the percentage was tiny compared to the amount that was NOT wrong.Does any of that Justify fake electoral slates that were standing by to replace the official slates? Whether you like it or not, Trump tried to steal the election from a duly elected president and to this day, he still believes it was the other way.
The problem is that he convinced people like you and millions of others to believe him...or even worse they don't give a sh*t. Indifference is worse than having an opinion. That's how Hitler was able to pull off the Holocaust.I still like Wilderness' effective admission that Trump is incompetent and unfit to serve.
He said he "Truly believes that Trump believes he won the 2020 election."
FACT 1: It is incontrovertible that the 2020 election was secure and fair and what tiny amount of fraud did occur could not have affected the outcome.
FACT 2: It has been proven though public records and testimony that authoritative people in Trump's circle that the election was secure, with little fraud and that he LOST.
FACT 3: There as been testimony that Trump told several people directly or through strong inference that he lost the election.
FACT 4: Trump's own actions to stay in power acknowledges that he knew he lost the election.
CONCLUSION 1: Trump does not truly believe he lost the election
CONCLUSION 2: If Trump does truly believe he won, as Wilderness says he thinks is true, then that is strong evidence to conclude Trump is mentally impairment.
How did that "prove" anything? Do you have the data to show that, even if true, it would have changed the outcome?
What "other problems" that were proven in court? NONE!
Where is your proof that the way mail in ballots were sent out caused a problem? Where did an investigation or court find that to be so.
All you are doing is repeating debunked messaging by Trump and his allies.
How did election "security" get set aside (another Trump myth) when the HIS Department of Homeland Security said the 2020 election was the most secure EVER?
You keep repeating these debunked conspiracy theories when their is clear evidence to the debunk each and every one.
How is the word "LOT", which you capitalized, the same as the word I suggested "LITTLE". No, it was not implied, it was just the opposite.
"LOT" was the word coming out of YOUR mouth (fingers, actually) not me putting them there. I never do that. I may say how I interpreted your words, but they are still your words.
Why didn't you use the word "LITTLE" if that is what you meant, rather than spend time and energy trying to rationalize your use of "LOT"?
Your last paragraph is very curious. Has Trump admitted defeat?
Yes, let me repeat it - "there is plenty of publicly available evidence and testimony that Trump told people he knows he didn't win."
Here are at least 8 times Trump was TOLD by authoritative people who know the TRUTH that he lost the election and there was no consequential fraud. -
* VP Pence
* Senior Justice Department Officials who investigated it at Trump's direction
* Director of National Intelligence who also did an investigation that found no consequential fraud
* Department of Homeland Security which found no consequential fraud AND claimed the 2020 election was the most secure ever.
* Several SENIOR White House Attorneys told Trump there was no evidence of consequential fraud.
* Senior Trump Campaign staff told Trump he had only a 5% - 10% chance of winning but ONLY if he won court cases in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Trump lost them all.
* State Legislators who supported and voted for Trump told him he had lost.
* And of course all of the State and Federal courts who ruled his allegations were " meritless.
https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-w … w-he-lost/
"Cassidy Hutchinson, former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testifying before the January 6th House Select Committee described conversations in which Meadows and other White House staff reported hearing Trump admit he lost. "
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 … -election/
They're not such a thing as an honest mistake. If they's they're fatal. Richard Nixon, hacking WaterGate, costing him the Presidency is an honest mistake. Jimmy Carter, sending that elite pack of Seal Team into Iran desert to rescure the 53 American hostage, is an honest mistake, costing him the presidency for second tenure. I would go on and on. The thing is that an honest mistake if it does ever exists is an admission of failure.
To boil that down, you just said that Trump's lies ARE NOT honest mistakes. That Trump either Knows what he is doing or is mentally incompetent enough to know what he is doing.
Thanks for being honest with us.The thing is that this equally applies to biden
Miebakagh57
You said this: Critically and humanly, I can't wear this garment you woven about Trump. It doesn't befit a character like me. I'm curious what is your character?You are back to judging all lies as equal, which they are not. So NO, it does not apply to Biden (or Harris).
Okay. Let's take two pieces of iron or french nails, 1 in and 6 ins respectively. Both represent the lies biden and Trump told respectlvely too. We know the 1 in nail lies biden told is less serious than the 6 ins nail lies Trump told, right? Now weigh them in any balance and see how the pendulum swing. But drop both nails in a drum full of water, they both sink to the buttom simultaneously. D' you see it? As all lies are not equal, they're all bad.
Did any of the 1 in nails lead to anyone's death because many of the 6 in nails did. Does that change your calculus?
I am not sure how the pendulum could swing, it would be stuck at its full extremity opposite the 6 in nails. It wouldn't swing at all.
And I doubt they would sink at the same rate in a barrel of water because of the effect of water resistance and buoyancy; the 6 in nail would hit first.
Also, add you your analogy that for every one 1 in nail, you have 100 - 6 in nails.
In either case, the accumulation of the bigger, more frequent lies is more impactful than the lesser one. Or, to out it then terms of you last sentence, "As all lies are not equal, they're are all not equally bad."How many deaths the 1 in nail cause? One death? That occured during Cook's trigger hungry stance... All lies are bad. If you're not ready, or willing to note that, I go away. Besides, how many deaths the 1 in nail caused? One? At the hand of trigger hungry Cook? Trump is the perfect target. D' you see it? But someone else died. That shock the whole world. Shock America specific, making Trump's enemies biden, Pelosi, and others in Democrat Party condemning the scenario. Significantly, the Rep is still pointing accursing fingers at you, not me.
You are obviously out of arguments when you make something so ridiculous up as to suggest that Biden had ANYTHING to do with Crook's decision that he wanted to go kill people. Please stay within the realm of reason.
He had as much to do with Crook's decision as Trump did with the decision to invade the Capital. If you accept one, the other is so nearly identical as to be indistinguishable; Biden tells Crook Trump is Satan personified, rotten and evil to the core, and must not be allowed to be President.
So...Trump must go, right? And another crazy shooter climbs onto a rooftop.Oh give me a break!! Did Biden call Crook to PA? NO!!!
Did Trump call his forces to the Capitol? YES!!!!! Many times. What world do you live in because it is not this one.
And then you make stuff up again with "[b]Biden tells Crook Trump is Satan personified, rotten and evil to the core,{/b] and must not be allowed to be President." Only the last phrase is correct as he joins the majority of the nation saying so.
And you know as well as I do, the mostly reason Crooks chose Trump's rally is because it was close and convenient. Trump wasn't the target because he is Trump. No, Trump was the target because that was who was standing at the podium where Crooks and decided it was time to kill someone, anyone.
Trump called his troops to the Capitol in order to illegally stay in power.Good! You got it! Biden tells Crook (and the rest of the world) how evil Trump is and that he must be stopped. Whereupon Crook shoots him to stop him.
Biden's fault, clear and simple. As clear and simple as "March peacefully" meant to break into the Capital and hang people. Actually, come to think about it, it is much clearer, for Trumps words must be "interpreted" (spun and changed according to the "secret code" that only you and a few others know) to mean what is claimed, while Biden's do not. Those words are very clear just as spoken and need no changing for them to mean "stop Trump".Now this is as dumb an explanation for the event if there ever was one. You are the gun nut that always says that it is not the gun but mental illness.
Blaming Biden for the stupidity of one adolescent sort of kid, now that is rich..... and I thought that this kid was on your team.
i also think that Trump is a malevolent clown, as do many others, but I did not try shoot him....The thought that the Democrats' declarations that Trump is a threat to our democracy compares to Trump's declarations that the election was stolen doesn't seem dumb.
The Biden administration and the Democrat party have pushed that narrative as their main point. Different pols have used different words, but the vehemence of the declarations—Satan, the Devil, fascist, etc. certainly seems to fit the description of Trump's actions.
The degrees of responsibility (of either side) are a partisan argument, but I don't think the basic comparison is. Both sides have their idiots, zealots, and extremists. In your words, it is dumb to think that none on the Left would take the 'threat to democracy' rhetoric as seriously as The Right's did Trump's claims of a stolen election.
GAThe problem is Crooks does not appear to have been drawn there by anything Biden said. It simply looks like he just wanted to kill people and that was the venue that was close by and had a lot of people. It could as easily been a Biden rally in the same location.
As I fruitlessly explained earlier, Biden did not send an email to Crooks asking him to come to that location and "have a wild time". Trump, on the other hand and told one violent group to "stand back and stand by" and on multiple occasions communicated to his troops by voice and media, to come to the Capitol on that day to "have a wild time".
Biden didn't stand out in front of 10,000 people and incite 2,000 to 5,000 of them to riot at Trump's rally. Trump, on the other hand did that telling them multiple times to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell".
You are clearly an intelligent man and other than being persnickety I just don't understand why you choose to defend such nonsense and misinformation that Wilderness is spreading.
As to speaking the truth that Trump is a PROVEN threat to democracy being wrong, I beg to disagree.Your response—the rationalizations for your point, is the partisan argument I spoke of. I didn't speak to Crook, but to the legitimacy of Wilderness making the comparison.
I don't see his point of comparison as misinformation or nonsense. I see the 'mortal direness' of the Left's claims describing the danger to our democracy and nation—from Trump, just as dangerous as you see Trump's actions. Which is worse may be a valid argument, but that they are debated illustrates that there is legitimacy in making a comparison.
GAHis comparison is illegitimate because it is based on false premises. He is making Biden telling the truth equivalent to Trump lying about the election (and virtually every other thing). Since the equivalency is false, so is the comparison.
It is misinformation because he implies the truth that Biden is telling is not true.
I hear you, GA,
Yet anyone who is behind changing electors illegally, prodding the Vice President to go beyond his Constitutional function as not much more than the MC in counting votes, suspiciously having a role and part participation in the J6 melee, counts as more than just heresay. The man is being charged in a court of law for this and this is the stuff of eyes and ears and not conspiracy theory based solely on Trump unsubstantiated claims. This would not be considered by the court if there were no merit and no reason to bring Trump up on charges. Why should I really believe what Trump says as the loser in 2020?
Yes, as a Democrat and person who trusts his senses, there is a difference between Trumps unsubstantiated claims and those charges against Trump that reach the prosecutable level.
Trying to subvert the outcome of an election is what I would consider a threat to the Democratic process as prescribed in the Constitution. So ther is a bit more involved than some sort of equivalence. So, it is not rhetoric but quite real.....
Absolutely. It's the Democrat pschcology to tell every being under the sun, that Trump, is SATAN, without reservation. Seems they project the Law of.Reserve Effort or Auto-Suggestion into...that affects Crook's mind. It's no wonder that MyExo is constantly labeling and calling Trump unimaginable names, including the so called nonsense jury and court decisions: convicted felon, sexual predator, ad infinitum.
Why do you see it wrong for the Democrats to tell the TRUTH about that?'
Why do you consider "convicted felon" unimaginable?
Why do your consider "adjudicated sexual predator" unimaginable?
Why do you consider "adjudicated fraudster" unimaginable?
Why do you consider telling the truth unimaginable?'unimaginable names' is followed or separated by a comma/period, and why should it included the jury/court verdict of (nonsense) felony conviction, which is in appeal court? MyExo go and learn the Oxford comma fullstop/period
You probably can't see good reason, don't have an answer due probably to your Dem background. I'm not not a Rep or a Conservative, but an outsider. No one here and the other forum threads has said once that I'm of tangent in a discussion. It's rare. The other week, you said something about 'generalization'. Someone else debunked it for my sake.
Actually, I started out as a member of the young Republicans. I left when the religious right took over and started their campaign to taking rights away from women and people who weren't like them (like you). Then the fascists took over in 2015.
The 2024 Republican Party should properly be called the MAGA party, of the Party of Modern Day Fascists. It has tossed aside all the principles Republicans once believed in.There is no proof to that, just hyperbolic slander the MSM loves to promote.
One could easily say the Democrats have become the Party of Modern Day Communists, who widened the Tent to include Anarchists, Satanists, and Post Modernists... probably missed one or two -ists, my apologies.Republicans used to believe in family values - Today they don't given their support for a sexual predator.
Republicans used to believe in Free Trade - Today they don't, Trump wants to place tariffs on everything under the sun.
Republicans used to believe in projecting American strength throughout the world - Today they have become isolationists like yourself.
I can tick through every principle that Republicans used to believe in and show how Trump has turned that on its head.
Republicans used to believe in keeping gov't out of people's lives - Today, they want the federal gov't to control any aspect of it that they disagree with.
You're now speaking like biden, who felt defeated, and gone. You should now began to speak like Kamala.
All the Trumpers are trying to blame the shooting on Biden and some how this is what motivated Crook to shoot Trump. However, it is also very clear that dead men don't talk. Therefore, no one can clearly know who or what motivated him to commit that crime.
It's interesting how each side wants to either get into Biden's head or Trump's head and surmise what caused the shooting. If one compares Trump's bombastic disgusting, lying, demeaning, hyperbolic speaking style to Biden's speaking style to see who can influence more people. I would say Trump would win.
Look at what he said a for a full year before the election: "If I lose the election it is rigged." He continued that drum beat for a full year, without any pause. Then look at what he said on Jan.6 "I didn't lose, there were fraudulent votes." Look at the wake of destruction he created and the number of people who have gone to jail because of his motivating them to follow his agenda.
Listen to what he saying right now about Kamal Harris and her husband. He is not going to quit, he is only going to get worse with his pathetic demeaning speech.It's the same way or the opposite way the Dem talk. But Trump zeal in surpassing them all is commendable.
How can it be the same way or the opposite way the Dems talk. It is either one or the other. That is called weasel wording. Why in your mind is that commendable. You call it zeal. I call it disgusting.
It is not the same way any politician in the democrat party talks. I don't understand why you make what Trump does and says equivalent to what Biden does and says. They are two different people with two different agendas. Sometimes I think you are having fun trying to frustrate us. Am I right?biden lie, doesn't it? And Trump, also lie, is it? Left or right, Trump, zealously surpassed biden. If that is not commendable in your eyes, they're certain here that sees it so.
So therefore a person who lies more than a thousand times and does it with more enthusiasm than someone else is praise worthy of doing a great job and should be commended for it because they are doing it with zeal?
Therefore a person who constantly cheats on tests and does it with more enthusiasm than anyone else in the class should be commended for doing it with more zeal.?
I hope you understand your use of "commended and zeal" in your context are negative connotations.
What is a negative connotation? Negative connotation refers to a word that evokes a negative emotional response. For example, words such as pushy, stubborn, nosy, and lazy all have negative connotations.
a feeling or idea that is suggested by a particular word although it need not be a part of the word's meaning, or something suggested by an object ...No. You got it all mess-up and wrong. I'm thinking in terms of politics, while you diverted to examination malpractice. Be that as it seems, both biden and Trump, lie during they last debate. Now, will you go tell biden not to lie again in any future debate or political campaign? Would Trump take that easy? No. He would suspect you a Dem undermining him. This is the picture I paint. That's why Trump still carries on more lies in all his political campaigns. All politicians do it. 'We want Chiko. Whether he be theft man, whether he be mad man'. It does described Trump well.
And other Trump words like "low IQ" and "nasty" and "dumb" also evoke negative emotions.
And yes, 'nasty', 'dumb', and othrs like 'felon', 'predator' and much more constantly and frequently used by you in this forum specific, evokes 'negative emotions' likewise.
That is exactly my point. The first two words are two that Trump loves to use to insult his opponents. The remaining words are words that describe Trump.
He is a convicted felon and a predator. A jury of his peers found that he was found guilty of 34 counts of business fraud,
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on … onviction/
His predatory practice include rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 25 women since the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr … llegations
So I don't care how you think of him. He is not a very nice person, but you are probably going to say all politicians are not very nice people because that is how you generalize your point.I'll take on your last paragraphy and sentence. Where in my response I posted or implied 'All politicians do lie', you seem to substituted 'nice' in place of 'lie' Then the logic is this: all politician do lie, thefore all politicians do nice. Therefore, Trump, is a nice person.
In the distant past, like during the 14th century, "nice" meant ignorant.
Now, I ask you, is Trump ignorant?My Kathlyn, your first paragraphy may be correct. Accordly, Trump, was not ignorant. But in the present realities, he's nice to some extend, though many will not welcome that.
You misunderstood what I said. I did not substitute nice with lie. I think you are having a tough time with the English language. And your translation from Nigerian to English. English is a very nuanced language and words can mean many things to English speaking people. When used in different context. They can imply and be inferred to mean many things by the writer and the reader.
I don't mean you actually substitute. I said you 'seem to', which is infering, or impling.
It's an implication on your part and an inference on my part. Words in the English language can mean many things when it coms to politics. One has to be careful when using political words. You may imply one thing, but it could be inferred differently by the reader.
American politics is loaded with slogans and idioms that in their literal sense mean one thing but in the political sense mean something else.
For example "He nocked it out of the park in that rally." Is a reference to a baseball game when the batter hits the ball out the baseball stadium.
It's an exercise in futility doesn't necessarily mean a physical exercise.
"Exercise in futility" is an idiom that describes an activity that is pointless, unsuccessful, or not worth attempting because it produces no result. That is exactly how I feel about arguing with you about Trump.
Here are some examples of political idioms.
https://www.lingualinkdc.net/blog/ameri … icalidiomsThanks for the link. We're not discusing American or political idioms here. Anyway, my point is in other.
In other what? What are we discussing? I thought for sure it was about how you commended Trump for lying with so much zeal and I told you that was a negative connotation for people who don't like Trump.
Forgive my typo...'order' instead of 'other'. Am I the excemption in the forum? And as to those who don't like Trump, let them carry on.
Thank you for the permission to let us carry on.
Trump is not your typical politician. He has been learning on the job.
He is a born and raised American citizen and an imperfect person, but his policies for national success on many fronts are quite sound.
Furthermore:
1. According to the wiki link provided above:
"Since the 1970s, at least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. Trump has denied all of the allegations."
2. "In December 2017, after several of Trump's accusers called on Trump to resign, Sanders said, "the president has addressed these accusations directly and denied all of these allegations, [which] took place long before he was elected." Since Americans elected Trump to office "at a decisive election", Sanders said, "we feel like these allegations have been answered through that process".Yes, Trump denied those women and called them liars. But, he also denied sexually abusing Carroll, and a jury found that he did. So much for his denial.
He denied committing bank fraud, yet a judge found that he did.
Trump denied trying to rig the 2016 election, yet another jury found him guilty of 34 felonies in his successful attempt to change the outcome.
In fact, Trump denies that his father was born in New York, yet public records tell a different story.
It seems all Trump can do is deny things he is guilty of such as molesting all those woman.
You're welcome. Honestly, the same thing applies to biden, Kamala, and Obama, who was recently brought into the picture. Honestly again, we all know that Trump, Biden, Kamala, and Obama, being politicians employ differing tricks or tactics to achieved their goals. Seriously, they talk, debated, argued, and so. They convincing the gullible public with whatever they think, imaginale or real. That all in the name of political campaign. Seriously again, if there's an American politician who outstretch much in campaign strategy, that man is Donald Trump. You can take any subject say 'job' and see how far, extra, and beyound he goes, and then fell of the cliff! So the 'black job'(some consider it another lie lately) trick is winning with 'gold' at the Paris 2024 Olympics Games. Trump is awesome.
I just cannot comprehend how you chose to equate Trump with the others - [b]He is so much worse than they are[/b[ he makes them look like saints in comparison. Do you not agree?
If you equate awesome with disgusting, then you might be on to something.
They's a difference between a 'lie' and 'liar'. I don't care what any dictionary says. Seriously, any Court Judge will fined or imprisoned you telling lie. Critically, Trump-Kamala-Biden all are in the same boat lieing, being politicians. Oddly, some 30 years ago, Kofi Anna, then Secretary-General of United Nations, was in Abuja, Nigeria. Being bade bye from my Rivers State, he promised: 'I will come again'. Kofi didn't revisit Nigdria, before leaving office, and before he died. Now, you Americans will consider this a lie, because promise made was not keep. A lie of any type, magnitude, size, weight, or intensity and persistency is dangerous. Just a single lie saperate man, from the Creator God,
I think you might take a minute to consider the magintude of lies. Getting a bunch of your intelligence lackeys to cover up your childs influence peddling so that you can throw an eleciton? THAT is a pretty serious lie.
And MAGA/Republicans call themselves Americans. They should be ashamed. (BTW, similar to the costly investigation into Biden, the costlier investigation into Clinton exonerated her)
Never Again in America - There are some jobs that Children should do. Trump's Project2025 strongly disagrees. Is THIS the way you want to make America great again?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/opinions … index.html"It should go without saying that children don’t belong in dangerous factories or working overnight shifts. They deserve to be safe and protected, including when they become old enough to legally work. Instead of exploiting the labor of minors to appease business interests, policymakers should look at the ways responsible leaders are making sound choices to develop and expand the pool of trained workers.
For decades, having children perform dangerous tasks in unsafe settings has been understood to be an egregious moral, societal failure. It’s appalling that so many Republican politicians want to take us back there."
------
Yes, ESO, it should go without saying that Republicans and conservatives are beasts, refering to them as just "weird" is all too kind.
All the more imperative that Trump and his neaderthols be soundly defeated this November.And yet Republicans have driven millions of children back into poverty just to save a couple of bucks (and then put them to work for the food stamps they will get).
Trump, the gift that just keeps giving. His NEXT LIE is that he didn't know Kamala Harris was Black until a little while ago. He then says SHE DIDN"T KNOW SHE WAS BLACK until it was convenient to say so.
Guess who he is telling this to - a convention full of Black journalists for God's sake. And this is the pathologically lying, felon, and sexual predator that MAGA wants for president. Wow, just WOW!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … -heritage/Gullible MAGA will eat these Trump LIES up.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlThat has to be classic Trump, boy did he step on tongue today revealing plain stupidity and ignorance for all to see.
Would you appreciated it if MAGA wants Kamala Harris, to be President?
Wouldn't that mean MAGA miraculously became brainwashed. We would love it if MAGA came to their senses.
In truth, all I want them to do is use the brain that god gave them in a rational and objective way. That was what our founders were counting on when they created our Constitution and tried to build in safeguards against something like MAGA destroying our nation.'We would love it if MAGA came to they senses'. But have you and fellow Democrats courteously court them? The answer is now. Instead you're condemnly all things Rep and Liberal. OMG!
You you courteously court Hitler? or Putin? or Un? or Hussein? or Xi?
What do you do with a person to whom you show the truth and they spit in your face and tell you to die?So, you are giving me permission to come find you and do what MAGA would do to you and you ignore me? Not likely. You would probably beat the crap out of me.
Hasn't it gotten to the point where patriotic Americans should be treating the far-right as Marxist, Fascists, and communists; just like the way THEY treat moderates and liberals?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/uk/south … index.htmlTalk about not being able to string two sentences together, lol, Trump fails his own test.
"When pressed about who would make decisions about which police officers would receive immunity, Trump said, “If I felt or a group of people would feel that somebody was being unfairly prosecuted because the person did a good job, maybe with crime, or made a mistake, an innocent mistake. There’s a big difference between being a bad person and making an innocent mistake. But if somebody made an innocent mistake, I would want to help that person.”"
What did he say? Did he answer the question? Did he say HE would be who would make decisions about which police officers should be punished or not for bad behaviour?I have to wonder how much Putin paid Trump to turn against Ukraine and NATO.
I also wonder how much Xi paid Trump to turn against Taiwan.
You know pathological liar, serial felon, and sexual predator Trump would sell out America at the drop of a ruble.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480 … r-ukraine/We all know this. The folks who care will vote Democrat in November. The folks who don't will vote Republican.
"The Left's claims describing the danger to our democracy and nation—from Trump, just as dangerous as you see Trump's actions."
The left is warning that the house is on fire - and it is irresponsible not to warn those inside that house. Trump's actions make him responsible for setting the house on fire.From the Right's perspective, Biden is just as much an arsonist as Trump. From the Center's perspective, the argument is one of degrees. They may see Trump's claims as more dangerous than Biden's (or not), but they do see a basis for the comparison. Which Democrats deny exists.
GABut the Right's perspective doesn't coincide with the facts, does it.
Democrats, and I suspect anybody not MAGA, sees the illegitimacy of that comparison.Well, you're wrong. I'm not MAGA and I see a legitimate comparison.
GA
The most obvious proof that Trump is in the process of destroying democracy is he has convinced 75% of Republicans, through his lies, that the 2020 election was fraudulent. That mere fact has significantly weakened democracy in America.
Add to that he has convinced a large majority of Republicans that our Justice system is fraudulent and biased (but only against him). That is another of his lies that has seriously weakened democracy.
My Esoteric: Please, save your energy for reasonable discussions. I know. For some here, reason is not their strong suit. But it's going to get worse before it gets better. Save your energy. When they lose again they are going to go ballistic.
Speaking of them losing - I just posted this on the Biden forum. The average of the RCP July polls leave Harris 1.6 points behind. The average of the first three polls in Aug leave her 2 points ahead!
Is there anyone left who doesn't believe (at least privately) that Clarence Thomas IS NOT in the pocket of Republican political operative billionaire Harlan Crow?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/politics … index.htmlOnly a racist would say what you just said. And since you are calling them lies, they MUST be the TRUTH!
Isn't this the mindset of Trump? How come Trump is now speaking within MyExo? Seriously, this is what wilerness, and others are expressing. MyExo refuted same back then. But is now upholding all his debunks.
Once again ????????? means you made no sense to me.
Sorry, but I think something was lost in the Nigerian to English translation. I really don't know what you are saying.
Nothing is lost. It's great. And a Dem like you? couldn't see a little (or small) (as we say in Nigeria) good thing about Trump! Now, you get my English and words? You do. Thanks.
" A jury of his peers found that he was found guilty of 34 counts of business fraud."
There's a bigger story to this event, you know.
One that disqualifies the judge and the jury convictions.
But that topic is a can of worms that I won't dwell on,
at all.True. English words and phrases have many meanings that correlate with the subject and/or the context. So, if one doesn't follow the topic, he may get some wrong idea.
There is NO excuse for making a President, in this case Trump, above the law. It is unAmerican to its core.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/politics … index.htmlAnother Grand Jury thought it appropriate to indict pathological lying, serial felon, and sexual predator Donald J. Trump in Arizona for election subversion. Prosecutors talked them out of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics … index.htmlGood heavens. Let it be. They say it lack evidence at the moment. Fortunately, for the Democrats, it'll be dug further. That's their world to get real with 'real' Donald Trump, whom a Dem Judge opined to be the next President of thd USA. Congratulations to every Democrat, who will get Trump, hack on all fronts without giving him some breath. Congratulatitions!
The Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence, but the prosecutors needed more to feel comfortable going forward; so "lack of evidence" is misleading, even in the article.
Trump is an extremely dangerous man, just as Putin is. He deserves no break from being held accountable for his many crimes.And yet, despite Trump's many crimes, he's not in jail and still running for President.
How do you explain this? How do you explain his continuing popularity and the fact that his supporters look past and are not bothered by his criminal behavior?A quick side note to you, re. The Beekeeper movie. If you haven't seen it yet, wait until you can see it for free. You still won't get your money's worth, but at least you will have seen it.
I'm an action movie and Jason Statham fan, but this one is just mindless unbelievable mayhem.
GAI concur.
Whatever small amount of claim to realism it had, it lost completely when he walked through a hail of bullets from guys that had him point blank practically in that tele-office scene.
I hate when that happens... there is a difference between highly improbable and totally impossible.
Still, that scene where he sent that guy screaming to his death tied to the truck was definitely worth the watch up to that point.Yeah, but it got unbelievable from there. We better return to the thread before we get fussed at, ;-)
GAYeah, because that isn't beaten to death enough...
Yep, although I just saw one that surpassed it in mindless mayhem - Deadpool and Wolverine.
Thank you for the advice. Appreciated. Did the sound effects in a theater setting add anything to it? I read a few reviews and saw the trailers. I am as you an action fan as well as Statham. I like the persona he projects onscreen. I watched the 2012 film Safe with him the other day on TV. It held my interest and was better than a soap opera on network TV.
More than an illusion. It's a canle. It burns on and on. And at last, it transisted into another plan, other than the earth. Not a mystery.
How is he still running for President? A quirk in our Constitution - our founders never conceived of such a circumstance as we have here and they didn't bar it directly.
They thought they had it covered with impeachment, but for some odd reason they didn't count on super partisanship foiling their safeguard.
He's not in jail like others who have committed his types of crimes because he is rich, audacious, and immoral.
I explain most of his support from brainwashing. That said, there are still millions of Americans who worship him because he acts like they wish they could. Those are the same kind of people who followed Hitler over the edge.You explain:
"such a circumstance" was not barred.
"super partisanship " foiled impeachment efforts.
being "rich, audacious, and immoral" prevented him from going to jail.
" brainwashing" has caused people to support him.
"There are still millions of Americans who worship him because he acts like they wish they could. Those are the same kind of people which who followed Hitler over the edge."
Okay. Thank you for enlightening us.I think that this is quite accurate and well said, ESO.
Okay. Can the Prosecutors prosecute Trump now for the 'lack of evidence'? No. But if the prosecutors felt they must go on to get Trump, out of the presidential race (that's a major characteristic of the D), let them go.
If they find more evidence, yes, they can prosecute Trump. Why don't you want prosecutors to prosecute criminals?
Why? Don't you hear me said let them go ahead?
Mie57:
Here is what you said:
"Okay. Can the Prosecutors prosecute Trump now for the 'lack of evidence'? No. But if the prosecutors felt they must go on to get Trump, out of the presidential race (that's a major characteristic of the D), let them go."
I think one of the problems we are having in understanding your posts is that I think you run everything through a translation app. It doesn't translate that well from Nigerian to English.
If you would have said, let them go ahead and prosecute, it would have been clear what your comment was about. The other problem is the translator has no sense of political context. It translate everything literally..
You said Trump should be commended for lying with zeal. That is very offensive to people who don't like his lying, but the translator doesn't know the difference. Perhaps in Nigerian, commended means something else. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Thanks for the heads up. The lacuna is the word 'ahead'. My brain back then was deadly dumb. I don't use any spinninp tool.
Any criminal including Trump, let them be prosecuted with the evidence the prosecutors found. I don't mind even if Trump goes to jail. That's my mindset.
JD Vance is getting Trump in hot water by criticizing Gov Walz's 24 years of honorable service. He retired as an E-8 after achieving the temporary rank of Sergeant Major - E-9.
Vance, on the other hand, made it to only the rank of corporal (E-4) after 4 years of service, Normally, soldiers make it to Sergeant (E-5) in that amount of time, what was wrong with Vance? (Did I mention is job was a public affairs correspondent?)
Now Trump-Vance are fabricating more lies criticizing Walz for deciding to retire so that he could run for Congress. They have no shame or honor.
Now, the Democrats and raise the legitimate story of Trump dodging the draft with an injury that was probably fake.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics … index.htmlTrump and Vance are hanging on by a thread. VP Harris says this all will be fun, I am going to enjoy watching them both dissemble before my very eyes.
What did you think of the Trump proposal to elimate federal taxation for Social Security income? Do you think that it has any mileage?
Trump seems desperate, has anyone on his team researched what is taken from the Treasury in regards to deficits or how that affects the fiscal viability of the Social Security program into the future? Or is it that Trump is just grabbing at whatever straw is available?
So much for lying Trump to criticizes Walz' handling of the unrest after the police murder of George Floyd.
TRUMP SAID "“I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days,” Trump said of Walz on a June 1, 2020, call during which he also described the Democratic governor as “an excellent guy.”"More Trump lies - this time about Willie Brown.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics … index.htmlThese are all politicians and their nonsense noise making.
One doesn't need to be an American to see the truth of that. From now until their official platforms are published, both sides will be ramping up their "nonsense political noisemaking."
GAThank you. And let the game continued. Their come and go. But the world is no longer the same.
I am so tired of people making excuses for Trump. If he can't tell the difference between lying and the truth, I don't want him anywhere near the nuclear codes.
I am also tired of his supporters who are indifferent to his constant lying. Indifference is what caused the holocaust. The German public just looked the other way, just the same way Trump supporters do.Fair enough. And I'm REALLY tire of people insinuating that Trump is another Hitler, continuing Hitler's concentration camps, genocide, war machine, etc. There is no comparison between the two, and yet there are people still making one as if it has even a smidgeon of sense.
At the end of the tale, it is nothing more than a lie; an attempt to convince people that something is true when it is not. Think of that the next time you want to convince someone Trump is evil by using lies.Wilderness: You missed the point.. Trump has lied and misled over 30,000 documented times, Do you and his followers really care one iota about that or the pending criminal charges against him, including Jan. 6?
That is the indifference I'm talking about, just like the German public in WWII. No it is not going to lead to concentrations camps. However, Project 2025 could for immigrants. How many of his supporters know about that or even care? This is from Project 2025 Stephen Miller one of the architects' of the project:
"Miller was considering deputizing local police and sheriffs for the undertaking, as well as agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Drug Enforcement Administration. He said these forces would "go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids" who would then be taken to "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,” to be held in internment camps before deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps."
The irony of all of this is Stephen Miller is of Jewish Heritage.No, you missed the point. Claiming Trump is a liar, while lying through your teeth about him being just like Hitler is the height of hypocrisy.
You mean the Project 2025 that Trump has repeatedly denied? That one that has absolutely nothing to do with gassing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens? The one that does not mention carrying out medical testing on those same illegals? The one that says nothing about literally starving illegals to death by the millions? The Project that does not address how to round up millions of illegal aliens from other countries so they could be murdered or abused?
Even if Trump completely signed on to 2025 it would not be the least bit similar to the Holocaust...the Holocaust that you keep trying to put on Trump. If everything you hint at here actually happened, at Trump's orders or not, it would not be worthy of mentioning in the same book as the Holocaust. They would not be similar enough.
(It is interesting, reading your rant about Trump and the homeless, that Grant's Pass, Oregon (remember, the Great Sanctuary State?) has now made it illegal to sleep in parks and such within the city. Blue cities nationwide are beginning to back off that wonderful unlimited "immigration" thing. Trump appears to have it right - it cannot be allowed to continue, so find a solution rather than complain about the only one being offered.)
My son visited the Holocaust Museum in DC recently. He said that was one of the things he came away with (how far from Hitler and the Holocaust Trump really is) and it made me realize just how utterly stupid such a comparison is. I've been there, too, and Trump could never be a pimple on the rear end of the people, including Hitler, that staged such a thing. They don't deserve the term "human".But his VP selection, Vance penned the preface to this Agenda 2025. So, how far is Trump really distancing himself from it?
Wilderness: See you are proving my point. Whether you like it or not Trump is a liar. You just ignore his 30,000 times and just look the other way, just like all his supporters do. Calling me a liar doesn't reach the magnitude of 30,000 times. I may be a liar in your eyes, but my statement is based on my observation of how Trump followers and behave about him. Indifference is a very dangerous behavior, because it allows those with malintent of power to do what every they choose without any resistance from the public. As Kung Fu said, To do nothing is to do everything grasshopper".
In your third paragraph, it's interesting in the Trump minds set, blue states are the bad states and red states are the good states and all those bad people are going to be dumped from the blue states to the red states
In your fourth paragraph, again, it's the followers and how they behave towards Trump. Do you care about Trump and his immoral criminal actions? No Do his followers care about Trump and his immoral criminal actions? No
"Former President Donald Trump, in a rally in New Hampshire, declared that immigrants coming to the U.S. are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
He claimed that millions of people entering the U.S. were responsible for this alleged poisoning, regardless of their origin—whether from South America, Africa, or Asia.
The term “blood poisoning” eerily echoes language used by Adolf Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” where he criticized immigration and the mixing of races"
I rest my case.You don't have a case if you are trying to compare Trump to Hitler (the topic under discussion). Suggest you visit the Holocaust Museum or, at a minimum, educate yourself as to what happened during that darkest period of human life.
You may still make the comparison, but you will at least understand why it is not a reasonable one.I don't have a case and you and all his followers can just continue to look the other way with total indifference to his plans if he is elected King Trump of America.
You do know that he will have total immunity from all his wrong doings and will pardon and release all his jailed followers of Jan.6? That's according to what he has said.That would be Genghis Khan, known for his brutality, responsible for the deaths of, at a minimum, 40 million people... at a time in human history when there were far fewer people alive than there were in the 20th century.
Do you truly believe that the ONLY way Trump can be Hitler-like is have his own version of the Holocaust? If so, you are way off the mark.
That was the biggest defining mark of Hitler, so yes. If Trump is like Hitler he must have a holocaust. The inhumanity of that program is the reason the comparison is made, after all.
Now we all clearly understand your extremely limited ability to draw inferences and analogies? As several of us have suggested many times, you are a black and white kind of guy with no tolerance for gray. That is not a criticism, just an observation we must take into account when interpreting your writings.
I don't know what Grant's Pass is doing, but Los Angeles is building places where the homeless can live until they can get on their feet. For those that won't live there, then they will need to move to the desert or something, they were offered the opportunity.
Yes, that will work out very well for the leaders of LA that have buried their head in the sand and refuse to live in the real world.
If (IF) LA actually follows through and houses a significant number of homeless guess what will happen to the number of homeless in the city? They are creating a magnet to draw more, and it WILL work. Nor will the majority of the homeless ever get "on their feet"; between drug addiction and mild insanity (for lack of a better term) they will not change. Nor will they care for their homes or even supply them with utilities. All costs will be born by the city dwellers...until LA begs the feds to pick the bill for their stupidity. We see it in sanctuary cities that now don't want to pay for their fine program; we will see it in providing homes for millions of people that won't support themselves.
No need to. Without reasonable similarity (zero) there is no reason to.
You know as well as I that Trump's so-called "denial" means nothing one minute after he utters. it.
You are also confusing Hitler-like or Hitler-adjacent with an the exact copy of Hitler that you are insinuating.
It seems that keeping a copy of Mein Kompf on his nightstand and using ideas from it would be a dead giveaway. Yes, there is EVERY comparison between Hitler and Trump - they are both the same kind of mentally ill personality. Granted, Trump hasn't YET threatened to use a gas chamber, but he IS threatening to use concentration camps for undocumented immigrants.
Anyway, here is a list of comparisons:
1. Use of Nationalism and Populism:
Hitler: Hitler capitalized on nationalist sentiments and promised to restore Germany to its former glory following the humiliations of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. He appealed to the frustrations of ordinary Germans by blaming societal problems on external enemies and internal traitors.
Trump: Trump used a similar nationalist rhetoric with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, appealing to those who felt left behind by globalization and demographic changes. He often positioned himself as a champion of the "forgotten" Americans and frequently blamed immigrants, foreign countries, and political elites for the nation’s problems.
2. Targeting Minority Groups:
Hitler: Hitler scapegoated Jews, Roma, disabled people, and other minority groups, blaming them for Germany’s economic and social problems. This led to the horrific genocide known as the Holocaust.
Trump: Trump scapegoated minority groups, particularly Muslims, immigrants, and people of color as well as disabled people (well newscasters anyway), blaming them for America's economic and social problems . His administration’s policies, such as the travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries and the family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, have been seen as discriminatory.
3. Discrediting Media and Institutions:
Hitler: Hitler sought to control the media and used propaganda extensively to manipulate public opinion. He referred to the press that criticized him as the "Lügenpresse" or "lying press."
Trump: Trump has often attacked the media, labeling any coverage that is unfavorable to him as "fake news." He has also questioned the legitimacy of various U.S. institutions, including the judiciary,, the intelligence community, especially when their actions or findings conflicted with his interests (such as saying Russian interfered with the 2016 election), and the electoral process.
4. Cult of Personality:
Hitler: Hitler cultivated a cult of personality, presenting himself as Germany’s savior. The Nazi propaganda machine worked tirelessly to create an image of Hitler as a larger-than-life figure.
Trump: Trump’s supporters often display a strong personal loyalty to him, and he has actively encouraged this. His rallies, speeches, and use of social media have all been integral in building a loyal following that sees him as a figure who alone can "fix" the nation’s problems.
5. Anti-Democratic Tendencies:
Hitler: Hitler dismantled democratic institutions in Germany after being elected, ultimately establishing a totalitarian regime. He used emergency powers to eliminate political opposition and consolidate power.
Trump: While Trump operated more or less within a democratic framework, he showed anti-democratic tendencies, particularly in his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. His refusal to concede and the subsequent events of January 6, 2021, where a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, are evidence of these tendencies.
Important Differences:
Despite these similarities, it's crucial to note the differences in context and outcomes. Hitler led to the rise of a fascist state responsible for World War II and the Holocaust, leading to the deaths of millions of people.
Trump, while controversial and polarizing, operated mostly within the bounds of a democratic system that remained intact after his presidency and insurrection. If he is elected, that could easily change. It can also be argued that MAGA is the potential replacement for fascism.
Sources:
CNN: Comparisons made between Trump's and historical authoritarian leaders' tactics.
The New York Times: Analysis of Trump's rhetoric and actions in the context of historical fascism.
The Washington Post: Examination of Trump's media strategy and its historical parallels.
I wish Trump was my neighbour. If he's that friendly with the public, I would kind of have sought out this falasy of truth from fiction, directly or indirectly. The Trump question is the most challenging of all the political discusion so far in American history.
Here is one "neighbor" of Trump you should talk to before throwing your life away to Trump.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-a-92 … nald-trump
Here is another view of your friend Trump.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-a … d=58912889I'm talking Trump as neighbour, not friend. Even if he was my friend, we've got to met in person or online to establish a (cordial) or cool relationship first. That just said, they's no doubt that you and Trump are friends while you're in the Republcan Party. But you've decamp to the Democrat. Therefore, to you, Trump is a liar, a convict felony, and a sexual predator. Thanks.
You definitely do not want to be his friend. In time, he will turn on you like he has everyone else and try to destroy you.
"Therefore, to you, Trump is a liar, a convict felony, and a sexual predator." - this is incorrect. You need to replace "to you" to "in the eyes of the law and the world".The fact that you and I are meeting in this forum has not ever established that we're friends or intend to be, is it? It would have been easy, but hardly possible because its hard for both of us agreeing. How much could that be of Trump, who I've not ever meet? Why d' you try to put up words in my mouth or for me? That is proof that you and I meeting here can't ever be friends. We hardly agreed.
Where did I put words in your mouth? I accepted your statement that "neighbor" doesn't equate to "friend". I think you are the one who said "even if he were my friend ..."
'I'm talking Trump as neighbour, not friend. Even if he were my friend', is what I said. Now, how's the context to the pretext? Does it establish a friendship? No.
Yes, you are correct about Trump spouting nonsense and noise.
Not just Trump. But all politicians. Not just in America. But in any country like Nigeria. A week ago, they was mass protest in Nigeria, against hunger. People are fed up with the contrary policies of the Federal or Bola Ahmed Tinubu Government. They now realised that all his political campaign talks and promises are noises and nonsense. In some quarters, he's being ask to step down as the President of Nigeria. But the thing is that he having given out 250 and 350 billions in local Naira Currencies last December respectively to each members of the Representative and Senate, as Christmas and New Year gifts, they couldn't bring him to his knees.
Understand. And while largely correct, it cannot be a blanket condemnation. Biden for one, while having his share of nonsense and noise, he also promised a lot of good things for America --- and he followed through with them. So much so, he is now considered one of the most successful first-term presidents in our history.
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
- 19
Has Trump already lost the election in 2020?
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
One of my favorite youtubers, Amazing Lucas, did a podcast covering how he feels the coronavirus could actually hurt Donald's election run; regardless of how you want to spin it. Even if Trump is miraculously able to overcome the virus, the problem is both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can...