Trump is running for President again

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 99
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,072
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
The team she plays for are the people of Wyoming, not the MAGA cult. That’s how politics is supposed to work.
Lol the people of Wyoming don’t even support her. That’s why she got the margins a Democrat gets in Wyoming and lost her own primary. If she were listening to the people of Wyoming like she’s supposed to, she wouldn’t have sat on the J6 Committee and vilified a major party figure.

And I said well over 90%, it’s actually 93%. The point here is that it’s silly to claim Cheney and Trump are so different on policy given the actual record, which refutes your whole point there.
What? I’m saying the establishment GOP voters votes based on emotion over policy. Trump GOP votes policy over emotion. Trump voters will support the establishment even if they don’t like them and think they’re snakes. Establishment voters don’t do that with Trump. They’d rather have a Democrat in office because of the mean tweets
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ILikePie5
vilified a major party figure.
And the Republican Party will never live it down. They will forever be known as the party that embraced Trump and let him take over the party.

A one term, twice impeached, draft dodging, tax cheating, sexual predator who lied every day in office and instigated an insurrection against the government because he couldn’t accept being a loser.

Republicans will NEVER live it down. Your children and grandchildren will be ashamed of all of you.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,850
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Establishment Dems are actually more afraid of Biden than Trump at this point. Half of the Dem Senators recently voted to end the Covid emergency executive powers....which Biden promised to veto.

Wonder why establishment Dem Senators are so afraid of what Biden will do next with those Covid powers since the whole college bailout failure...
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What ever you say tough guy
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
"Because he isn't Trump." So your character argument is a load of shit.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump GOP votes policy over emotion.
If that were the case then the Trump GOP wouldn’t have nominated Hershel Walker, the most incoherent mess of a senate candidate we’ve ever seen. What are his policies? Besides banning abortion despite his history of aborting babies.

Trump voters love to pretend they are on some kind of policy high ground, too good for the “emotional stuff”. That is of course complete bullshit. Trump ascended to the top of the republican ticket well before he even knew what his policies were. If his voters cared so much about policy, they wouldn’t flock to his rallies to watch him ramble on and on about all of his grievances and non flushing toilets. His speeches are the most substantively vapid spectacles our generation has seen, a babbling incoherent mess that draws large crowds only because of its cult like atmosphere. They are the most policy absent political event in the country.

The whole “we don’t care about emotional stuff, we care about policy” retort is a psychological defense. There is no way to excuse voting for someone so flagrantly unqualified for office in literally every way a human being could be unqualified, so you just pretend that qualifications don’t matter. That’s the true danger of Donald Trump, his very presence warps the minds of millions of Americans to the point where there may not be coming back from it. “TDS” is a phrase born out of projection.

When Bill Clinton lied about a blow job that was too much to bear, meanwhile Trump tries to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent and leads the first non peaceful transfer of power since the civil war, but that’s aye ok. It’s truly sickening.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I heavily disagree. If a rule is changed just so one side benefits, that’s inherently unfair.
It depends how much they benefit. If you have armed, hostile soldiers looking over your ballot, then every ballot will be affected, and it will be completely unfair. If it's a dispute over counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, then very few ballots will be affected. Unless there's reason to believe that those ballots would change the result, then it's still mostly fair.

Just because you don’t hear about it, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Where?
How would you analyze the impact of the rule change? You really can’t because you can’t compare it to the baseline. It’s basic method. Everyone knew about this.
It depends on the nature of the rule change. If it affects every ballot, then it can be difficult and imprecise. If it only affects some ballots, then it can be easier.
If you have Democratic executives in places like WI and PA changing the law singlehandedly, without any consultation or law change of the state legislatures, how unfair and contradictory to the concept of separation of powers is that?
To the separation of powers, quite unfair. To the election? Unfair, but not to a huge degree. Again, there would have to be evidence that it would be enough to change the results. However, regarding the national election, not unfair at all. Flipping PA and WI isn't enough to make Trump win.
I never said Trump is the best speaker. He’s notorious for his hyperbolic speech.
"This was the most unfair election ever" is hyperbole. "Venezuela hacked voting machines" is an insane conspiracy theory.
You can ask for evidence all day. You can ask for hard numbers all day,
And I will. If Trump claims the election was rigged, then he better have evidence proving it. The bar for evidence does not get lower due to an inability to meet it.
Theirs is no statute that doesn’t allow the VP power.
That is the exact opposite of how governmental powers are granted. If it doesn't say they can, they can't. If it doesn't say they can't, but also doesn't say they can, then they still can't.
And Democratic operatives violating the founding concept of separation of powers is just left to be and not talked about. Really sad.
Would you mind arguing against my positions and not the positions of the stereotypical NeverTrumper that you imagine me to be? I don't think it should be left as it is and ignored. My position isn't "The election was perfect and should never be questioned!" If there are questions, then they need to be answered. If the questioners find problems, the problems should be solved. However, if someone questions an election, they need to have evidence to back up their claims. It's grossly irresponsible to spout off rubbish about bamboo in ballots and the like.

But ultimately, quibbling about the imperfections of the election rather misses my point about Trump. If an election has problems, then those problems should be dealt with legally using the courts and the state legislatures, not by propagating insane conspiracy theories and attempting to illegally overturn the election. None of the problems in the election justify what Trump did. Not even close.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
See the problem here is that everyone argues that the election was perfect. It had numerous flaws.

For those mature adults here at DArt, logical common exposes the two huge flaws, --the only true problem-- that far outweigh any other alledged flaws:

1} Trumpet,

2} 60 million who voted for Trumpet.

End-date-for-humanity on Earth?  2232 and that is being generous.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Because British society is such that Parliamentary Politicians are merely the puppets and administrators of a Monarchic system.

The Monarchic system being an unelected and little changing aristocratically led establishment.

That's not to say that in terms of social stability the system does not function in the best interests of the populace.

Therefore, as I see it voting serves very little overall purpose other than to distract people's attention every now and then.

If one finds one's social niche and is content with it, then a different group of Parliamentary wannabees aren't going to make a great deal of difference.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Because British society is such that Parliamentary Politicians are merely the puppets and administrators of a Monarchic system.

The Monarchic system being an unelected and little changing aristocratically led establishment.

That's not to say that in terms of social stability the system does not function in the best interests of the populace.

Therefore, as I see it voting serves very little overall purpose other than to distract people's attention every now and then.

If one finds one's social niche and is content with it, then a different group of Parliamentary wannabees aren't going to make a great deal of difference.
In which manner would you have it run that would give purpose to your vote?

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Government by referendum, whereby all major decisions are voted for by the people and all majority decisions are unchallengeable for a fixed period.

As it stands a vote every five years just for a parliamentary representative is simply a powerless and meaningless notion of inclusion.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Government by referendum, whereby all major decisions are voted for by the people and all majority decisions are unchallengeable for a fixed period.

As it stands a vote every five years just for a parliamentary representative is simply a powerless and meaningless notion of inclusion.
How does a decision by referendum which can't be challenged fair better than an un-elected aristocratic monarchy? What if that decision by referendum extends this fixed period indefinitely?
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6

So how many on this list are relevant because Trump was president lost so his chances are actually slimmer than some of the people who have never run before.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
How does a decision by referendum which can't be challenged fair better than an un-elected aristocratic monarchy?

Well, the answer lies in the question.

The former is the majority will of the people and the latter isn't.

Though whether or not either the former or latter decision is the better in the long run cannot ever be judged.

And the basic idea of the system allows for the decision to be challenged after a fixed period.

Such a system would still require administrative and legal governance.


Though your previous questioning only asked how I might feel a sense of inclusion in a governmental process.

I'm not saying that I would want to challenge the current system.

As I've stated on previous occasions, I have a social niche I am comfortable with, and successive governments have not affected that comfort.

Hence, I do not feel the need to vote.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, the answer lies in the question.

The former is the majority will of the people and the latter isn't.

Though whether or not either the former or latter decision is the better in the long run cannot ever be judged.

And the basic idea of the system allows for the decision to be challenged after a fixed period.

Such a system would still require administrative and legal governance.


Though your previous questioning only asked how I might feel a sense of inclusion in a governmental process.

I'm not saying that I would want to challenge the current system.

As I've stated on previous occasions, I have a social niche I am comfortable with, and successive governments have not affected that comfort.

Hence, I do not feel the need to vote.
Okay, fair enough.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Nice discussing this with you.

Bedtime now.

Good night.


PS.

Assuming that you do vote.

Do you therein feel a sense of inclusiveness? 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Good night.
Good night, sir.

PS.

Assuming that you do vote.

Do you therein feel a sense of inclusiveness? 
That would be an incorrect assumption. I don't vote at all. I do not, and I will not indulge the illusion that majoritarian consensus takes priority over individual dissent.



zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Individual dissent.

So, would you accept the label of anarchist. Albeit a passive anarchist (another assumption)

Though it seems that you tolerate the current system as I do, sort of along for the ride as long as a reasonably stable status quo is maintained.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So, would you accept the label of anarchist.
Yes.

Albeit a passive anarchist (another assumption)
What's a passive anarchist?

Though it seems that you tolerate the current system as I do
I don't tolerate it. I just haven't abandoned my land and possessions.

sort of along for the ride as long as a reasonably stable status quo is maintained
If there's a ride, I'm not on it. I do my best to persuade those whom I know, and encounter--if the subject comes up, of course.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
What's a passive anarchist?

The opposite of an aggressive anarchist I suppose.


Anarchy being every person for themself.

Which is OK until everyone decides upon anarchy.

I'm not sure that total anarchy can ever be a natural state of co-operation and good intentions.


And possessions are temporary adornments, and all ownership of land is theft. So it's said.


And isn't life a ride?

Some might say a rollercoaster.

One big up and down if you're lucky.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Anarchy being every person for themself.

Which is OK until everyone decides upon anarchy.
Correction: Anarchy is every person choosing for themselves. One cooperates as it suits them; one dissociates as it suits them.

And possessions are temporary adornments, and all ownership of land is theft.
Because?



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,850
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Because?
You do not own anything if you cannot say "no"
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You do not own anything if you cannot say "no"
What prevents one from saying, "no"?

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,850
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
For many people, fear.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
For many people, fear.
Please elaborate.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,850
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Private property isn't really a thing in America for most people due to regulations and taxes. If you cannot say no, you do not really own it.


No is the measure of true power.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Private property isn't really a thing in America for most people due to regulations and taxes. If you cannot say no, you do not really own it.


No is the measure of true power.
No argument here that the United States doesn't respect private property. Hence my objection.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Because ownership of land is a temporary assumption and possessions are for as long as you last.

And if only anarchy could be so passive.

So, Mr A chooses X for himself, and everyone else chooses X for themself.

So, in the absence of a greater authority to decide who is entitled to X, then what?

Well, being the U.S. I suppose the guns come out of the cupboard.

Well, I would imagine that the guns would already be out in an anarchistic utopia.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
Correction: Anarchy is every person choosing for themselves. One cooperates as it suits them; one dissociates as it suits them.
There is only the great illusion of chaotically random disorder.

Disorderly Trumpet and his disorderly cult of MAGA only make some underlying order harder to find.

 Orange-Grey-Parrots 'just say no' campaign is like a MAGA child throwing a minimalist temper tantrum.

There, ive said no, and there is nothing you can do about it.  Then the oncoming wave /\/\/ washes them away onto the land or out to sea.



  


TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
IWantBrainsAgain,

The ONLY affirmed “sexual predator” to ever sit in the Oval Office was Bill Clinton. 

The second “sexual predator” affirmed by video and photographic evidence to ever sit in the Oval Office is Joe Biden (and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree with Hunter Biden). 

Unproven allegations that anyone can pull out of thin air doesn’t make one a “sexual predator,” it just makes them a target for harassment by those who don’t like him AND are looking for both money and their 15 minutes of fame. 

Fact. 

Yours Truly, 
Smarter than you!!