Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Trump's been on fire recently. It seems that 2020 taught him a very hard lesson.
Trump Post Election News.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Airedale260
Well-known member
Okay, counselor, so please explain to me how you know more about constitutional law by presenting your own brief and opinion on the matter. Because all you have done is attack the judge personally rather than refute his reasoning. That's the very definition of an ad hominem.
Well, that's *exactly what he did*. It's not the judge's fault that Trump's team made shitty arguments that don't hold up in court. Again, if you think you can do better, prove it.
Since you refuse to back it up with specifics, concession accepted, thanks. Moving on.
Get through what? That it convinced enough people to believe it that they voted against Trump? I'm not disputing *that* but rather the claim that this was some nefarious conspiracy of shadowy forces rather than an extremely massive and effective political campaign (which is shady as fuck, I agree, but still technically legal, sadly).
And how exactly is this going to help the GOP put the brakes on the Democrats' agenda?
Yeah, and again, what the fuck does that have to do with voter turnout? See, most people who voted for Biden weren't actually doing it because they liked him, it's just that they despised Trump far more. So rally attendance has nothing to do with it
No, it's really not. There may be a bias in the WSJ news section but two things: 1) The story is by Michael Barone, a longtime conservative commentator and not someone who a reasonable person would call a RINO. So, that's your first mistake. 2) No reasonable person would equate the WSJ's level of bias with that of the Daily Stormer. Obviously you disagree, but I'm writing these and providing them for anyone else who wanders by and sees you living down to the stereotype of a crazed Trump supporter and dragging down the boards' reputation with it.
And that serves as proof that Romney is a RINO vs Romney just strongly despises Trump personally enough to vote to convict on one of the charges how? Because I don't give a shit about the impeachments. I want to know how Romney fits the definition of "RINO" in the political sphere other than "Trump calls him one."
Well, since you didn't actually answer my actual question except to say "Romney is a good example" without explaining WHY he's a good example (which is what "definition" means), what am I supposed to think? Either explain in detail what a RINO is or just admit you don't know and are parroting what Trump says because he says it.
You're the one making a positive claim, namely that the opinion polls are all biased and that rallies are an accurate measurement of political support. So put up or shut up.
Meanwhile, below is a link that contains links to a massive list of the opinion polls you claim are biased. Go ahead and provide conclusive evidence other than platitudes of "Wikipedia is left wing!"
You asked whether I mocked Biden's followers for having a messianic view of him. Since he doesn't HAVE that kind of following, for the reasons I provided and you somehow felt the need to add to even though we actually agree on that point, the answer is no. If he *did*, the answer would have been yes.
Clearly you don't know me or even my history on here or else we wouldn't be having this discussion, and in any case I never said Fauci or Obama were better or worse than Trump. The latter half of the sentence is completely irrelevant.
You only said "Clinton". Given that there is more than one well-known Democratic politician with that last name, I'm not going to make an assumption, because you know the old saw about what those do, right?
Actually, I do care somewhat because when your arguments consist of stating your opinions as fact, dismissal of supporting arguments made by those who disagree with you without actually refuting why they're wrong other than "they're biased!", and then pretending you've answered a direct question by saying "I already answered that" when you actually didn't...I think you need to learn how to make logical and coherent arguments for something. You don't just get to throw things regurgitated by others on here, or things you heard others say, as irrefutable fact. I sincerely hope you don't plan on applying for any jobs where you're required to make a coherent and logical argument while providing evidence to back up your position, because your efforts (or rather, lack thereof) are, to quote Donald Trump, "SAD!"
And, more importantly, it's because I actually have no problem calling bullshit on people (not just you, but a couple other posters in this thread) who keep repeating talking points ad infinitum as if they're fact, hoping that, because they can't provide any hard evidence, those who disagree with them will just go away and enable them to declare victory.
And as for your view on Trump, that's fine, and I would agree some of it's been exaggerated by the media. But, and this is a big BUT, Trump *also* has a well-documented history of screwing over other people, like how he still refuses to pay former employees the wages they're owed, despite *having been ordered to so by the courts*, and how when any individual tries to sue him, he has his legal team drown that individual and their attorney in frivolous motions that would get laughed out of court, because he has much deeper pockets than they do, and he can afford to waste money on frivolous things whereas most people cannot. Or how he often subsequently stuffs those lawyers because he's tired of paying them or doesn't like how they did one small thing.
Whether he loves America or whether he simply is in it for himself, I don't know. But it's somewhat harder to believe when he has a history of treating other people, including his own brother and niece, like shit behind closed doors or when the cameras aren't rolling. And that makes the negative coverage more damning than it might otherwise be, because one can look at Trump and realistically say "Yeah that could very well be true."
Okay, can you please clarify exactly WHAT you are talking about, because I never heard anything of the sort, and my attempts at locating this on the interwebs have proven futile?
"Republican president gets pushback from his bureaucracy" has been a thing since at least Reagan was president. However, the first thing any competent manager asks is "Why, exactly, would this be impossible to do?" If this was so important to him, then perhaps doggedly pursuing it and enlisting the help of others in Congress and his staff who also wanted to do it, instead of just shrugging it off.
While I think certain aspects were exaggerated, it's pretty clear that it degenerated into a bunch of infighting that seems more akin to a reality show or something you'd watch on TMZ or Bravo. That's not how one should be running a government in general. It certainly doesn't put the average American at ease to see this.
You're missing the forest for one specific tree. If a peer says something hurtful about you, the generally accepted response of a mature adult is to ignore it, or, if they're feeling snarky, wait until the person making the comment does something silly and then hit back. Not run away from it and complain someone said bad things about you.
And I don't care who says what to Biden. The subject of this discussion is Donald Trump and his behavior. If you want to get into an extended discussion on Biden, there's a separate thread for that.
In no particular order:
-The USFL
-Trump Airlines
-Trump: The Game
-Trump Hotels & Casinos, and its successor after emerging from bankruptcy, Trump Resorts. Which ALSO went into bankruptcy a few years later.
-Trump Magazine
-Trump Mortgage
-Trump Steaks
-Trump Tower Tampa
-Trumpnet
Remember, he's declared bankruptcy about seven different times, and also, nobody actually knows WHAT Trump's net worth is, especially since it may in fact be exaggerated or mixed up in licensing and branding. Trump *claims* he's a billionaire, but people who try to make sense of who owns what assets end up getting lost in a maze.
As for the rest? Yeah, Trump was right on some of that stuff, I've never denied that. But just because he may have been right on some things doesn't mean he's automatically right or telling the truth about everything. And given Trump's habit of overstating things and talking out of his ass on other subjects over the years, it's *very* difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Trump's on a warpath.
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Good; hopefully he can wrest control of the Republican party from the establishment. Though I'm not sure he'll be able to resist the temptation to build alliances with those pretending to be on his side again.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
He may not need to worry too much about that last part. Neocons are cowards. Show them whose in charge, and just watch most of them fall in line. He can then destroy the remnants at his leisure.
Largo
Well-known member
I mean, this is the part to me that's the most ridiculous about all this.
You people rant and rave about Big Media, Big Tech, Big Business, the Democratic and Republican Establishment, all of these groups of wealthy and powerful people uniting together to fight against Trump and his great revolution......but then turn around and find the idea of Trump losing to such a coalition to be utterly impossible.
So are these people powerful enemies, or are they are not powerful enemies?
Both.
They are idiots with money
Largo
Well-known member
Have to admit I didn't expect to get an immediate doublethink answer to my question, so kudos to being upfront about it.
Gotta exceed expectations
DarthOne
☦️
‘Powerful’ doesn’t mean ‘invincible’ or ‘crafty’.
Largo
Well-known member
It however, does mean that you can conceive of losing legitimately to them.
No.
Because powerful dpes not mean invincible and fsir playing.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Powerful enough to cheat their way to a win.
Largo
Well-known member
Well, that's a nice little Goldilocks zone you've managed to get your enemies into. Not powerful enough to win legitimately, but powerful enough to be a real challenge. It's nice how these little narratives work.
It's also very convenient how you just know what the general will of the US population is, and how you just know that the people are behind you for all your efforts. This is of course, very different from every other tyrant starting from Robespierre who used "the general will" as an excuse to rape, butcher, and plunder without suffering the slightest pangs of moral conscience. I wish I had that sort of knowledge.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
They are powerful enemies.
That doesn't mean that the manner of their 'victory' cannot be through foul play.
You'll note that despite how despised his policies were, there was no broad-spectrum wide-scale outcry that Obama had cheated to win in 2008 or 2012.
All the details of what happened in 2020 matter for the perception of whether the Dems cheated to win or not. I felt depressed when Obama won in 2012, in spite of all the stupid crap he'd done and gotten away with. I didn't think he'd cheated to win though; he was still pretty popular with a lot of people, and you could see that through the culture in multiple ways.
Trump, on the other hand, on every level looked to be doing better in 2020 than he was in 2016. Biden, on the other hand, was almost literally an empty suit, and was doing practically nothing to try to earn a victory.
I won't rehash every single reason why on here again; it's enough to say that there's alternatives between 'powerless and overhyped' and 'too powerful to lose the election.'
Terthna
Professional Lurker
So you deny then the fact that the Democrats cheated in the 2020 election? Despite all the evidence presented since in the form of videos, eyewitness testimony, and official government documents? You're either a willfully ignorant fool, or a conniving liar.
Largo
Well-known member
Were you better off in November 2020 than you were in November 2016? Stuck in your home, unable to go out, seeing your loved ones die to COVID, or watching your cities burn due to rioting or looting or fearing where you would get your next job or how you would pay your rent?
You might argue that these things were exaggerated. You might argue that these things aren't Trump's fault. Heck, I might even agree with you on some of these points. But to the ordinary person, who doesn't pay attention to politics and who doesn't vote for anyone beyond the President? The answer is that they weren't better off in November 2020 compared to November 2016. And when you have, in your own words, Big Media and Big Tech and all those rich powerful people shouting that it is Trump's fault, it's hardly implausible for people to decide it is Trump's fault and to go for the other guy. But you're the one with the parasocial feelings, and so it's just become impossible to accept that the outcome was possible, let alone probable.
You might argue that these things were exaggerated. You might argue that these things aren't Trump's fault. Heck, I might even agree with you on some of these points. But to the ordinary person, who doesn't pay attention to politics and who doesn't vote for anyone beyond the President? The answer is that they weren't better off in November 2020 compared to November 2016. And when you have, in your own words, Big Media and Big Tech and all those rich powerful people shouting that it is Trump's fault, it's hardly implausible for people to decide it is Trump's fault and to go for the other guy. But you're the one with the parasocial feelings, and so it's just become impossible to accept that the outcome was possible, let alone probable.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Notice how you're not actually trying to argue that the Democrats didn't cheat? You're just trying to argue that they would have won anyways, by making a lot of vague claims that you and you alone had your finger on the pulse of what the American people were thinking during the 2020 election.
