Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[F1fan]

If I don’t vote, I have no authority to complain.

No, you can complain no matter who wins.

 

[Kenny]

No, you can complain no matter who wins.

Not in my view

 

[Ponder This]

Get out of here with this.

You can show yourself out. You utterly failed to offer any practical alternative, regardless of whether or not you believe the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Proof that the Crown Prince was involved has also failed to surface - an essential part of any proposed trial or punishment of the Crown Prince. Trials for the murderers and compensation for the family doesn't satisfy you. So you can go sit in a corner and be dissatisfied, secure in your knowledge that everyone believes the same hear say that you believe. And then you can go cry to Biden about how a court case filed in the United States by Mr Khasshogi's ex-fiance against the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia failed miserably under Biden's adminstration and even granted the Crown Prince immunity.

Following his 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump decided to continue managing his business empire in tandem with his new position as Commander-in-Chief.

Trump did not manage his businesses while President, rather Trump Organization was placed into a trust - his son and one executive managed it.

Moreover...

But on Monday, with President Donald Trump no longer in office, the dispute fizzled. That’s because the Supreme Court dismissed the two cases in front of it and wiped away appeals court opinions that went against the former President because he is no longer in office

Not even worth the Supreme court's time. Ouch!

What questions do you think this raises about the "fairness of the trial" exactly?

Um no. I've been saying the same thing the entire time.
He is civilly liable for sexual assault. I made a point to say that the Judge stated that it was, in fact, a rape. Which is what we're talking about right now.

You said the judge came out and called it "rape" after the trial was over. He shouldn't have done that. And it raises the additional doubt about how impartial he was during the trial. And you included the link that explains what the charges and verdicts actually mean, which makes this continued misuse of the word more egregious.

What evidence?

I assume this is referring to the E. Jean Carroll accusation, where she claimed to have worn an outfit at a time when the outfit didn't exist yet, where she can't remember the year it happened, where she can't remember if it was winter or summer or fall or spring in New York City, where the architecture of the building doesn't allow the events she claims to have occurred the way she says they did, where the state legislature conveniently just so happens to pass a law that retroactively allows her to sue Trump, and where a court verdict requires Trump to pay an exorbitant amount of money for saying he didn't do it.

Her alleged outfit is well-documented. She brought it out of her closet to make money by wearing it for the cover of New York magazine.

Of course, it turned out that the outfit didn't exist at the time that she claimed she was raped - so she had to change her story... which amounted to neither her nor the people she allegedly told after it happened, remembering when it happened! Year, season, month, day - no clue. Why did the trial even go forward? The New York legislature conveniently passed a law that just so happened to allow the case to be pursued. The amount awarded in the defamation was $83.3 million - because he dared to continue to say he didn't do it. Lawfare was brought to you by Reid Hoffman, billionaire LinkedIn co-founder and big political Democrat donor.
This is one of four big cases brought against Trump during the time he is running for President. Timing is everything.

Trump's personality is a dumpster fire. He's a proven con man, a pathological liar, and he cares for no one but himself. He threw the entire country under the bus because he's such a baby that he couldn't face the fact that he lost and had to give up his power. He's been throwing temper tantrums ever since.

Nah, I question that even watch speeches of his that you've claimed to have watched. Trump has more personality than any of the other candidates. But I'll say again - personality is not a good enough reason to vote or not vote for someone. There should be other reasons.

LOL No, I watched what happened on January 6th and everything Trump did and said during the months leading up to it.

Did you? I am suspicious of your level of comprehension of his speeches. But assuming you did watch him, what of it?

I watched the impeachment hearings.

So did I. I watched those highly partisan impeachments. Clown shows really.

I watched the January 6th Congressional hearings (which you apparently have not - still!). It's obvious what Trump did for anyone who has been paying attention.

The partisan committee devoted to slandering Trump? Did you know some of their documents have gone missing? They destroyed them rather than allow a Republican congress to see them. No wonder you think it was an insurrection. Test for you:

Approximately how many people were at the capitol on Jan 6?​

Approximately how many entered the capitol building?​

Approximately how many were violent?​

Do the math: less than 1% involved in anything you can even remotely call akin to insurrection.
Moreover, more than 99% confirmed peaceful protest.

Hillary Clinton doesn't still claim she won and that's got to be one of the worst false equivalencies I've ever seen. Do better.

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

I have to submit that the TDS is all yours. You will apparently defend this horrible human being at all costs. Which he said his followers would do, by the way.

I actually don't approve of his use of force in the Middle East, even though he didn't start a war. The problem here isn't that I would defend everything he does - it's that you don't have good reasons for what you say about him.

This was in response to, "This was in response to your claim that I'm delusional for claiming Trump "doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic."

Trump is loyal to no one. Even those who he hired to sycophantically lick his boots and commit crimes on his behalf. They're all in prison now, or facing trials and/or prison. time."

You're losing track of the thread again. I asked you basic questions about Giuliani, Michael Cohen, and Jeff Sessions, and you answered none of them. I get it - long thread, we're getting no where at convincing each other and probably won't. We should probably wrap this up soon.

This was in response to, "He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia."

What's xenophobic, is the stuff I just typed to you that you just ignored and twisted into something else.

You're just licking his boots again.

Try harder. Or don't. You're accusations are tiresome.

Yeah, that's not a policy. It's just a sentence. And of course Mexico never paid for the wall because that's not a policy of any kind. It's just a demand. And a stupid one, at that.

I've listened to him speak on and on and on. It's most gibberish, mixed in with some childish insults, and some "build the wall" stuff. None of which amounts to any sort of coherent policy about anything. Have you tried reading a written transcript of one of his speeches? It's borderline nonsensical.

What do you think policy is?
Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual
Policy: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.
Policy: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body.
Policy is a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions.

Like I said, I've had no trouble understanding him speak. I've watched video as opposed to reading transcripts of his speeches. Maybe that's your problem. These are speeches he's giving - not essays. He explains what Mexico paying for the wall means: during the Trump adminstration, Mexico policed their side of the border.

I have heard him speak. A LOT. My opinion of him has been informed by watching him speak for years. That's how I decided he's a horrible human being. That and his many horrible actions.

You have TDS - you support a civilly liable rapist and a proven con man. What's more deranged than that?

You're entitled to your opinion. I can't help you that you have trouble understanding what he says, when I don't. If it's really true that you have watched him speak and you just can't understand him, then I think it's very sad.

This was in response to, "That's the problem. It's not about HIS feelings and how HE feels about it. It's about the American people getting a chance to listen to what the candidates have to say about what they're going to do for THEM. Trump thinks everything is about himself." [in regard to Trump refusing to debate].

Can you explain how your response addresses what I said?

That was your response to me pointing out that what he was saying was actually probably true [with regard to Trump refusing to debate]. In other words, not just some egoic opinion. And like I pointed out, he's given plenty of speeches explaining what he plans to do for the American people. There seems to be some sort of issue where you don't like his speeches... nothing I can do about that. If you really do watch his speeches (or try to read them on transcript) and you decide you don't like what he has to say, then that's your opinion.

 

[F1fan]

You said the judge came out and called it "rape" after the trial was over. He shouldn't have done that. And it raises the additional doubt about how impartial he was during the trial. And you included the link that explains what the charges and verdicts actually mean, which makes this continued misuse of the word more egregious.

You show more concern that the word "rape" was abused than E. Jean Carroll. That's all we have to know about Trump supporters.

 

[Ponder This]

This was in response to, "That would be projection, on your part. I "consume" media from all perspectives. I even watch Fox News from time to time."

Your question doesn't make sense in light of what I said. Or rather, it's already been answered.

That sounds a lot like a 'no' to me.

Dictators? Tyrants? Murderers? No. And they definitely have never said they've fallen in love with one. That's your boy.

Being so terrible at diplomacy might be a contributing factor to why so many wars started during their administrations.

How about just not claiming you've fallen in love with them and going on about how much you admire them?

Do you admire tyrants and dictators? Do you think that's normal? Or good?

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this. People tend not to be all good or all bad. And it would be a good thing if all the world's leaders could move closer to world peace and love.

Putin is a smart guy. Not an admirable guy though. He played Trump like a fiddle. And he played Tucker Carlson like a fiddle just the other day.

Maybe, but then again, I didn't see any other Western journalist interview Putin in the two years since he started the war in Ukraine and, IMO, that is more damning for the rest of so-called journalism than whether or not Tucker got played.

In what way did Putin play Trump?

"If Trump had a talk with Putin and ended the war in Ukraine?" LOL

Is it funny? We know Biden is not inclined to.

Do I think all Russians should die because of Putin? What a strange question. Of course not. My heritage is Russian, by the way. I definitely don't support Putin.

I don't like Putin either, so we can both agree to not like him. Common ground!?!
But when Biden says the point is to degrade Russia's military, you don't support that do you? The aim of war should not be... war itself. Why has Biden not stepped up and had a talk with Putin - directly? Is it because he can only ever insult Putin publically in an effort to score political points in the U.S.? He's a tyrant and, therefore, talking is politically incorrect?
But Trump would talk with Putin - directly if needed. Isn't that expected of a leader?

Who said anything about starting a "new war in the Middle East??"
I'm talking about holding a guy accountable for DISMEMBERING AND MURDERING A JOURNALIST.

You're talking a lot, but you definitely aren't talking about how to hold anyone accountable for anything. You're screaming bloody murder, but aren't talking at all about what should actually be done.

This isn't an actual response to the content of what I said though, is it? Just a hand waving instead.

"He's a horrible excuse for a human being with no redeeming qualities.
I don't support sexual abusers.

What's astounding to me is that anyone at all supports a sexual abuser."

What content? You just spewing your opinion for the upteenth time? We all know your opinion. "no redeeming qualities"

He almost started a war with Iran. And China.

Almost.

Trump doesn't have any coherent policies that he has ever laid out for anyone.

Remain in Mexico is a coherent policy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can show yourself out. You utterly failed to offer any practical alternative, regardless of whether or not you believe the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Proof that the Crown Prince was involved has also failed to surface - an essential part of any proposed trial or punishment of the Crown Prince. Trials for the murderers and compensation for the family doesn't satisfy you. So you can go sit in a corner and be dissatisfied, secure in your knowledge that everyone believes the same hear say that you believe.

This was in response to, "Everyone on the planet, save for you, apparently, knows the Crown Prince had Khasoggi murdered and dismembered.
You and Trump seem to be the only two people who don't know this. Or don't care.

So what if he compensated the families of the guy HE HAD MURDERED. Oh boy, what a wonderful person! Get out of here with this."


Practical alternative to what??

And then you can go cry to Biden about how a court case filed in the United States by Mr Khasshogi's ex-fiance against the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia failed miserably under Biden's adminstration and even granted the Crown Prince immunity.

You shouldn't have a problem with that, right? It's all good, right?

Well, I have a problem with it. I don't support it, just because Joe Biden did it. That's the difference between a Trump supporter and everyone else.

Trump did not manage his businesses while President, rather Trump Organization was placed into a trust - his son and one executive managed it.

That "revocable trust" allowed him to tell the trustees how to run the company and allowed him to fire them as he wished. He retained his financial stake in the business.

He actually promised to put all his assets in a "blind trust" if elected, but guess what? He didn't do that when he became President.

Moreover...

Not even worth the Supreme court's time. Ouch!

"But on Monday, with President Donald Trump no longer in office, the dispute fizzled. That’s because the Supreme Court dismissed the two cases in front of it and wiped away appeals court opinions that went against the former President because he is no longer in office."

BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER IN OFFICE.

You said the judge came out and called it "rape" after the trial was over. He shouldn't have done that. And it raises the additional doubt about how impartial he was during the trial. And you included the link that explains what the charges and verdicts actually mean, which makes this continued misuse of the word more egregious.

How does it raise doubt about the Judge's impartiality, exactly?

What do you call inserting your fingers into another person's vagina without their consent? Do tell.

Her alleged outfit is well-documented. She brought it out of her closet to make money by wearing it for the cover of New York magazine.

That clearly upsets you. But it's not an argument. People are allowed to make money.

Of course, it turned out that the outfit didn't exist at the time that she claimed she was raped - so she had to change her story... which amounted to neither her nor the people she allegedly told after it happened, remembering when it happened! Year, season, month, day - no clue. Why did the trial even go forward? The New York legislature conveniently passed a law that just so happened to allow the case to be pursued. The amount awarded in the defamation was $83.3 million - because he dared to continue to say he didn't do it. Lawfare was brought to you by Reid Hoffman, billionaire LinkedIn co-founder and big political Democrat donor.
This is one of four big cases brought against Trump during the time he is running for President. Timing is everything.

Sounds like another lame conspiracy theory to me. Poor Trump, everyone is out to get him for committing crimes his entire life! LOL

Sorry dude, but this had been adjudicated TWICE in a court of law. Trump is a civilly liable rapist and a defamer. And he wasn't found liable just for "saying he didn't do it." That's a laughable claim.

Nah, I question that even watch speeches of his that you've claimed to have watched. Trump has more personality than any of the other candidates. But I'll say again - personality is not a good enough reason to vote or not vote for someone. There should be other reasons.

Personality? Yes, he has a sociopathic personality. I don't vote for sociopaths. Especially civilly liable sexual abusing sociopaths.
Maybe that's your bag.

Did you? I am suspicious of your level of comprehension of his speeches. But assuming you did watch him, what of it?

Yep I did. Did you watch the insurrection as it happened?

Please point out somewhere what reason you have to be "suspicious of my level of comprehension of his speeches." As though his speeches are the slightest bit complex. LOL

So did I. I watched those highly partisan impeachments. Clown shows really.

For someone who claims to have watched them, you know surprisingly little about them.

The partisan committee devoted to slandering Trump?

No, the one devoted to successfully exposing his criminal behaviours that he's now been indicted for.

Did you know some of their documents have gone missing? They destroyed them rather than allow a Republican congress to see them. No wonder you think it was an insurrection. Test for you:

Approximately how many people were at the capitol on Jan 6?​

Approximately how many entered the capitol building?​

Approximately how many were violent?​

Do the math: less than 1% involved in anything you can even remotely call akin to insurrection.
Moreover, more than 99% confirmed peaceful protest.

Do you think these are arguments that an insurrection didn't actually happen or .... what? What are you trying to say here?

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

And you think that's the same thing as repeating over and over all over TV and social media that the election was stolen from you, that the Democrats are corrupt, that the voting machines have been tampered with, that votes have been created out of thin air for the other guy, that something has to be done about it, created a scheme that included slates of fake electors in 7 different states, breaching voting machines, and harrassing state leaders to "find votes" for them. And that's all after losing 60+ court cases in which you asserted that the election had been stolen from you. Then you STILL go on about it and foment an insurrection.

I don't know how any rational person could actually think these two scenarios are even remotely the same thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I actually don't approve of his use of force in the Middle East, even though he didn't start a war. The problem here isn't that I would defend everything he does - it's that you don't have good reasons for what you say about him.

So far you've defended everything he has done.

You're losing track of the thread again. I asked you basic questions about Giuliani, Michael Cohen, and Jeff Sessions, and you answered none of them. I get it - long thread, we're getting no where at convincing each other and probably won't. We should probably wrap this up soon.

You asked what my comments had to do with Trump's xenophobia.

Yes, Giuliani and Michael Cohen lied for Trump. And now they're paying the consequences. Michael Cohen went to prison for it. Giuliani has had the pants sued off of him and he's now bankrupt, claiming Trump still owes him money.

Try harder. Or don't. You're accusations are tiresome.

This was in response to, "He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia."

What's xenophobic, is the stuff I just typed to you that you just ignored and twisted into something else.

You're just licking his boots again.

No, you try harder. Address what I said instead of brushing it off and claiming it's "tiresome."
It's xenophobic to declare a "Muslim ban on every person entering the US."
It's also xenophobic (and paranoid and wrong) to claim that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US.

What do you think policy is?
Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual
Policy: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.
Policy: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body.
Policy is a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions.

A comprehensive plan outlining an a course of action to address an issue, concern, practice, regulation or procedure.

"Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" is not a comprehensive policy.

Like I said, I've had no trouble understanding him speak. I've watched video as opposed to reading transcripts of his speeches.

Reading the transcripts exposes the fact that he's just spouting mostly gibberish.

Maybe that's your problem. These are speeches he's giving - not essays.

Essays are actually coherent and provide a thesis and arguments in support of the thesis. (Good ones, anyway.)

He explains what Mexico paying for the wall means: during the Trump adminstration, Mexico policed their side of the border.

Based on what plan, exactly? How does it work?

So you think "Mexico paying for the wall" actually means "Mexico policed their side of the border" ... ? And you think that's a comprehensive policy for anything?

You're entitled to your opinion. I can't help you that you have trouble understanding what he says, when I don't. If it's really true that you have watched him speak and you just can't understand him, then I think it's very sad.

I don't have any trouble understanding what he says. Never said that. He speaks at a rather elementary level.
The problem is that he never actually says anything comprehensive and he spends most of the time talking about himself and his sad list of grievances.

That was your response to me pointing out that what he was saying was actually probably true [with regard to Trump refusing to debate]. In other words, not just some egoic opinion. And like I pointed out, he's given plenty of speeches explaining what he plans to do for the American people. There seems to be some sort of issue where you don't like his speeches... nothing I can do about that. If you really do watch his speeches (or try to read them on transcript) and you decide you don't like what he has to say, then that's your opinion.

So that means he doesn't have to debate the other candidates, like all Presidents always do? Because he gave some speeches and held some rallies? Why the special rules for Trump?

His speeches are usually always unhinged, ranting long diatribes about all the ills that have supposedly been done to him (classic projection), mixed with third grade insults and weird conspiracy theories about the election supposedly being stolen from him.

I've heard much better Presidential speeches in my lifetime and so have you. Coherent ones. Why anyone still defends this horrible civilly liable sexual abuser at this point is very disturbing to me.

 

[Ponder This]

This was in response to, "Everyone on the planet, save for you, apparently, knows the Crown Prince had Khasoggi murdered and dismembered.
You and Trump seem to be the only two people who don't know this. Or don't care.

So what if he compensated the families of the guy HE HAD MURDERED. Oh boy, what a wonderful person! Get out of here with this."

There are two important facts here:
1. There is overwhelming evidence of who murdered Khashoggi and how.
2. There is no evidence that the Crown Prince ordered the murder.
When you say you know he did it, you are not being honest about the facts.

But even so, what do you want? What is justice in this case? You won't (or can't) answer this simple question no matter how many times I ask you.

Practical alternative to what??

Alternative to the current result! What does justice look like to you in this case?

You shouldn't have a problem with that, right? It's all good, right?

Well, I have a problem with it. I don't support it, just because Joe Biden did it. That's the difference between a Trump supporter and everyone else.

I'm glad you can amend your position.

How does it raise doubt about the Judge's impartiality, exactly?

What do you call inserting your fingers into another person's vagina without their consent? Do tell.

The judge should be able to accept the result of the case and not misrepresent it.

That clearly upsets you. But it's not an argument. People are allowed to make money.

That's surprisingly accurate of you. She obviously did it to make money.

Sounds like another lame conspiracy theory to me. Poor Trump, everyone is out to get him for committing crimes his entire life! LOL

Sorry dude, but this had been adjudicated TWICE in a court of law. Trump is a civilly liable rapist and a defamer. And he wasn't found liable just for "saying he didn't do it." That's a laughable claim.

Did you follow the link? It's not a conspiracy theory. Reid Hoffman funded her case.

I don't vote for sociopaths.

LoL. You don't vote?
Of course, I disagree with your characterization of Trump.

Yep I did. Did you watch the insurrection as it happened?

Please point out somewhere what reason you have to be "suspicious of my level of comprehension of his speeches." As though his speeches are the slightest bit complex. LOL

You said Trump didn't lay out any policy. It's your lack of knowledge of what Trump said.

No, the one devoted to successfully exposing his criminal behaviours that he's now been indicted for.

At least you admit they made the committee to go after Trump.

Do you think these are arguments that an insurrection didn't actually happen or .... what? What are you trying to say here?

The first point: there was a peaceful protest on Jan 6. It's a simple test of your knowlege. If you didn't know this, then one questions that you know what happened on Jan 6. You claimed to be so well informed from the committee.

And you think that's the same thing as repeating over and over all over TV and social media that the election was stolen from you, that the Democrats are corrupt, that the voting machines have been tampered with, that votes have been created out of thin air for the other guy, that something has to be done about it, created a scheme that included slates of fake electors in 7 different states, breaching voting machines, and harrassing state leaders to "find votes" for them. And that's all after losing 60+ court cases in which you asserted that the election had been stolen from you. Then you STILL go on about it and foment an insurrection.

You agree that Hillary Clinton thinks Trump stole the 2016 election from her. I was having a bit of trouble hearing that admission over all of the TDS.

So far you've defended everything he has done.

So far you've attacked everything he has done. So I think that's fair.

es, Giuliani and Michael Cohen lied for Trump. And now they're paying the consequences. Michael Cohen went to prison for it. Giuliani has had the pants sued off of him and he's now bankrupt, claiming Trump still owes him money.

I don't follow your argument as to the problem with how Trump responded to them.

This was in response to, "He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia."

What's xenophobic, is the stuff I just typed to you that you just ignored and twisted into something else.

As far as I can tell, this still has nothing to do with Cohen and Guiliani.
I already addressed the claims of xenophobia but you repeat the same argument. I'll add more.

No, you try harder. Address what I said instead of brushing it off and claiming it's "tiresome."
It's xenophobic to declare a "Muslim ban on every person entering the US."
It's also xenophobic (and paranoid and wrong) to claim that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US.

He didn't ban muslims. He banned specific countries, such as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq because the people traveling from those countries were not properly vetted. Iraq was dropped from that list after it promised to improve the vetting of Iraqi citizens.
Murderers, rapists, and insane people are entering the U.S. from other countries. If Trump had instead said the people in other countries were all muderous insane rapists, then you would have a leg to stand on. But he didn't say that. So you don't have leg to stand on.

A comprehensive plan outlining an a course of action to address an issue, concern, practice, regulation or procedure.

"Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" is not a comprehensive policy.

While I don't agree that policy is always comprehensive, it should be a course of action that addresses an issue, ...
"Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" sums things up. Trump goes into detail about what that means in terms of border security and Mexico to address the border issue.

Reading the transcripts exposes the fact that he's just spouting mostly gibberish.

Have you watched him speak or do you only read these "transcripts". Is English a second language for you?

Based on what plan, exactly? How does it work?

So you think "Mexico paying for the wall" actually means "Mexico policed their side of the border" ... ? And you think that's a comprehensive policy for anything?

I think you have to look at all of the policies together in order for it to be "comprehensive". Nothing Biden does is "comprehensive" if you just look at each individual Biden policy. Nothing anyone does is "comprehensive" just by looking at one of many policies in effect. Taken altogether, Trump's policies proved superior to Biden's polices with respect to the border.

I don't have any trouble understanding what he says. Never said that. He speaks at a rather elementary level.
The problem is that he never actually says anything comprehensive and he spends most of the time talking about himself and his sad list of grievances.

My understanding of the word "comprehensive":

• complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.
• of large content or scope; wide-ranging

His policies address specific issues.

So that means he doesn't have to debate the other candidates, like all Presidents always do? Because he gave some speeches and held some rallies? Why the special rules for Trump?

I think he should debate everyone. There's no special rule. Trump's winning nomination without debate. Biden's winning nomination without debate. Apparently, Trump is now saying that we should have a Presidential debate... I suppose I'm happy that Trump has changed his mind about the importance of debate. >.> <.< I suspect he thinks a Presidential debate is better for him than it is for Biden. What do you think?

His speeches are usually always unhinged, ranting long diatribes about all the ills that have supposedly been done to him (classic projection), mixed with third grade insults and weird conspiracy theories about the election supposedly being stolen from him.

I've heard much better Presidential speeches in my lifetime and so have you. Coherent ones. Why anyone still defends this horrible civilly liable sexual abuser at this point is very disturbing to me.

Obama was a good speaker. Hillary Clinton was pretty good too. But more recently... Vivek is very well-spoken. Nikki not so much - I mean when she said it was a two person race after coming in third - ouch! Bernie is good at speaking. Um... many others speak well. Trump's speeches are good. Is he the best ever? Probably not, but Trump is quite coherent and very persuasive, perhaps more so than anyone else in the Presidential field at the moment. It must be either that you don't listen to him or you just hate him so much or you don't like what he has to say. But saying that Trump is incoherent is just false.

 

[metis]

The first point: there was a peaceful protest on Jan 6.

That is seriously delusional, and you can watch the footage of what happened on YouTube. If you can't find it, tell me and I'll link it to you as I have to leave for a while.

 

[F1fan]

There are two important facts here:
1. There is overwhelming evidence of who murdered Khashoggi and how.
2. There is no evidence that the Crown Prince ordered the murder.
When you say you know he did it, you are not being honest about the facts.

This is why we can't trust MAGAs. You think you know better than intelligence officials. When I ponder why conservatives defer to the side of dictators and murderers it must be to help them justify supporting Trump.


I think he should debate everyone. There's no special rule. Trump's winning nomination without debate.

Because MAGA is a cult.

But notice he is not winning outright, there are many conservatives who prefer Haley or Biden to Trump. The question is how many conservatives are ethical enough to never vote for Trump, and smart enough to realize voting third party could end up helping Trump in the crucial swing states. Third party voters think they are being principled, but they aren't seeing the big picture.

Biden's winning nomination without debate.

That is typical for incumbants. AND Biden has work to do, unlike Trump. I guess we can say Trump is a professional criminal defendant.

Apparently, Trump is now saying that we should have a Presidential debate...

I welcome it. It will get great ratings, and Biden can show voters that he is lucid and sane, while Trump displays his usual unhinged dysfunction.

I suppose I'm happy that Trump has changed his mind about the importance of debate. >.> <.< I suspect he thinks a Presidential debate is better for him than it is for Biden. What do you think?

Trump is a fool who reacts to circumstancs with emotion. I doubt he has the courage to go through with a debate with Biden. Every time Biden is interviewed he shows stability and lucidness. Trump has no platform. He goes back and forth on ideas to appeal to whomever he is talking to. That might work at a rally, but on television in front of a diverse audience? And includes peolpe who don't follow news? I suspect Trump polls as well as he does because many voters don't realize how disturbed he is. I can see after a debate where he brings his usual nonsense ranting that his poll number will plummit. He lost in 2020 because he is unfit. Let voters see how far he has declined mentally.

Obama was a good speaker. Hillary Clinton was pretty good too.

And the USA would have been better off if Clinton was elected. We would have a better Supreme Court.

But more recently... Vivek is very well-spoken.

Yes, we could all hear his insane rhetoric clearly. He was too much for MAGAs.

Nikki not so much - I mean when she said it was a two person race after coming in third - ouch!

She is not a savvy thinker. She is reasonably ethical and stable, but she is wishy washy, and makes way too many errors when speaking. Her slavery non-answer is an example, along with her agreement that fertilized eggs are children. She's persistant, but shows too much weakness and fear.

Bernie is good at speaking.

He has excellent ideas that most everyone recognizes. The good ideas go directly against the far right.

Um... many others speak well. Trump's speeches are good.

No they aren't. His off the cuff remarks are emotional, divisive, and all about him getting applause. The only time he has content is when he is reading off of a teleprompter. Of course it's funny when he gets words wrong and tried to pretend he didn't make a mistake. "...we have to protect the furniture, and the future, of children..." The lack of humility is a major character flaw. It's dangerous in authority.

Is he the best ever? Probably not, but Trump is quite coherent and very persuasive, perhaps more so than anyone else in the Presidential field at the moment.

Coherent? Only in the sense that we can understand the 4th grade level ranting, and how absurd it is. If that's the best conservatives can support then conservatives are a threat to America.

It must be either that you don't listen to him or you just hate him so much or you don't like what he has to say. But saying that Trump is incoherent is just false.

Has it occurred to you that citizens have ethics and values that Trump offends? Just because your ethical standards are so low doesn't mean others don't have the normal high standards. Trump got fired in 2020 for a reason, despite his support from poorly educated and badly inflormed conservatives. America can do much better than Trump, and that is Biden.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are two important facts here:
1. There is overwhelming evidence of who murdered Khashoggi and how.
2. There is no evidence that the Crown Prince ordered the murder.
When you say you know he did it, you are not being honest about the facts.
Alternative to the current result! What does justice look like to you in this case?



But even so, what do you want? What is justice in this case? You won't (or can't) answer this simple question no matter how many times I ask you.

Justice would entail not making lucrative deals with the Saudis that enrich Trump and his family.

I'm glad you can amend your position.

Nothing has been amended.

The judge should be able to accept the result of the case and not misrepresent it.

He did. notice you didn't answer my question about whether or not you think inserting your fingers into another person's genitals is rape. It is. And the judge said so.

That's surprisingly accurate of you. She obviously did it to make money.

I'm always as accurate as possible. No surprise here.

Did you follow the link? It's not a conspiracy theory. Reid Hoffman funded her case.

Who cares? This is nothing more than a deflection.

LoL. You don't vote?
Of course, I disagree with your characterization of Trump.

Look up antisocial personality disorder in the DSM.

You said Trump didn't lay out any policy. It's your lack of knowledge of what Trump said.

No, he hasn't and probably never will. "Build a wall" isn't a cohesive policy for anything.

Notice how I just asked you to provide some policy of his and this was your response instead.

At least you admit they made the committee to go after Trump.

Uh yeah, that's usually what happens when people commit crimes. I"m all for going after people who commit crimes. Aren't you?

The first point: there was a peaceful protest on Jan 6. It's a simple test of your knowlege. If you didn't know this, then one questions that you know what happened on Jan 6. You claimed to be so well informed from the committee.

This was in response to, "Do you think these are arguments that an insurrection didn't actually happen or .... what? What are you trying to say here?"

So, you think there was no insurrection .... ?

You agree that Hillary Clinton thinks Trump stole the 2016 election from her. I was having a bit of trouble hearing that admission over all of the TDS.

No, I don't.

The TDS is all yours if you think that Clinton and Trump are on equal footing on this one. That's completely irrational and contrary to the facts.

So far you've attacked everything he has done. So I think that's fair.

You think it's fair to defend everything Trump has done, whether good or bad, because I've "attacked everything he has done?" Wha?

I don't follow your argument as to the problem with how Trump responded to them.


As far as I can tell, this still has nothing to do with Cohen and Guiliani.

Who said it was?

I already addressed the claims of xenophobia but you repeat the same argument. I'll add more.

I repeated what you were responding to because your response didn't address what was said.

He didn't ban muslims. He banned specific countries, such as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq because the people traveling from those countries were not properly vetted. Iraq was dropped from that list after it promised to improve the vetting of Iraqi citizens.

He actually said the words I quoted.

Ohh he only banned immigration (including refugees) from specific Muslim countries so it's not xenophobic then? Please tell me that isn't your argument.

Murderers, rapists, and insane people are entering the U.S. from other countries.

That's the lie Trump tells you guys, anyway.

The fact of the matter is that migrants/refugees/immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than natural born citizens do. I think the reasons are obvious.

If Trump had instead said the people in other countries were all muderous insane rapists, then you would have a leg to stand on. But he didn't say that. So you don't have leg to stand on.

What? He said they are sending murderers, rapists and people from insane asylums.

While I don't agree that policy is always comprehensive, it should be a course of action that addresses an issue, ...
"Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" sums things up. Trump goes into detail about what that means in terms of border security and Mexico to address the border issue.

That sums up nothing at all.

Have you watched him speak or do you only read these "transcripts". Is English a second language for you?

Both. Have you read a transcript of any of his speeches yet? English is my first language and I'm well versed in it. That's how I know he's just saying is basically nothing (and a lot of lies and BS).

There's a lot of "if you look at what's happening in ... " and "Look at what they're doing in ... " without any further explanation as to what's going on or being done. It's a lot of vague references to nothing, lies, endless insults and childish name calling, complaints and whining.

I think you have to look at all of the policies together in order for it to be "comprehensive". Nothing Biden does is "comprehensive" if you just look at each individual Biden policy. Nothing anyone does is "comprehensive" just by looking at one of many policies in effect. Taken altogether, Trump's policies proved superior to Biden's polices with respect to the border.

Nonsense.

My understanding of the word "comprehensive":

• complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.
• of large content or scope; wide-ranging

His policies address specific issues.


I think he should debate everyone. There's no special rule. Trump's winning nomination without debate. Biden's winning nomination without debate. Apparently, Trump is now saying that we should have a Presidential debate... I suppose I'm happy that Trump has changed his mind about the importance of debate. >.> <.< I suspect he thinks a Presidential debate is better for him than it is for Biden. What do you think?

I think the people running for President during a presidential campaign should debate.

Obama was a good speaker. Hillary Clinton was pretty good too. But more recently... Vivek is very well-spoken. Nikki not so much - I mean when she said it was a two person race after coming in third - ouch! Bernie is good at speaking. Um... many others speak well. Trump's speeches are good. Is he the best ever? Probably not, but Trump is quite coherent and very persuasive, perhaps more so than anyone else in the Presidential field at the moment. It must be either that you don't listen to him or you just hate him so much or you don't like what he has to say. But saying that Trump is incoherent is just false.

Compared to every single other person you mentioned here (save for maybe Haley), Trump's speeches are juvenile, rambling and borderline incoherent. I think your admiration of him is blocking your ability to see that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

More likely, you imagined Trump engaged in insurrection because of TDS. Hmm, what do you call it that Clinton still claims she won in 2016?

Um, here are the first words Hillary Clinton spoke on the morning after the election in November, 2015:

"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country."​

This was part of what is known as a "concession speech." You should look it up. Learning is a cure for ignorance.

 

[Kfox]

Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?

I would pick Trump over Biden, but I would prefer anyone else running for the Republican nomination over Trump.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Justice would entail not making lucrative deals with the Saudis that enrich Trump and his family.

Speaking of enriching -- Trump has finally had to admit, to the court in NY, that he can't raise the $454 million -- he couldn't even raise the $100 million in the defamation case, but had to put up a bond (which will cost him later). Think about this: he claimed -- in his NY court case, that his properties were worth "billions and billions." But if they are, then he could raise up a bond by simply putting some of those properties up for collateral. But he doesn't seem able to do that either, which seems to imply his properties aren't worth anything like he claims -- I suspect, rather, that they are encumbered to the hilt.

Now, it is not a requirement for the Presidency to be a billionaire, by any means, but it ought to be a requirement for anyone seeking the support of American citizens that he be at least a little honest and up-front with them.

Yet, as we now see, he's even more of a fraud than even the TDS-est of us imagined.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speaking of enriching -- Trump has finally had to admit, to the court in NY, that he can't raise the $454 million -- he couldn't even raise the $100 million in the defamation case, but had to put up a bond (which will cost him later). Think about this: he claimed -- in his NY court case, that his properties were worth "billions and billions." But if they are, then he could raise up a bond by simply putting some of those properties up for collateral. But he doesn't seem able to do that either, which seems to imply his properties aren't worth anything like he claims -- I suspect, rather, that they are encumbered to the hilt.

Now, it is not a requirement for the Presidency to be a billionaire, by any means, but it ought to be a requirement for anyone seeking the support of American citizens that he be at least a little honest and up-front with them.

Yet, as we now see, he's even more of a fraud than even the TDS-est of us imagined.

I was actually chuckling to myself about this just yesterday.

 

[freelight]

~*~*~

TRUMP any day over Biden - just a current opinion


~*~*~

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

~*~*~

TRUMP any day over Biden - just a current opinion


~*~*~

Any particular reason? Maybe you just like being lied to a lot?

 

[SkepticThinker]

~*~*~

TRUMP any day over Biden - just a current opinion


~*~*~

His being civilly liable for sexual abuse doesn't bother you?

 

[Ebionite]

January 6th "insurrection" was infiltrated - insider testimony.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756036164765565074

 

[Soandso]

January 6th "insurrection" was infiltrated - insider testimony.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756036164765565074

How do we know he's not just lying and making things up like everyone else has been doing lately like the my pillow ceo or the "FBI informant" who was just indicted for making false statements on the record about the Hunter Biden case?