Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

It actually is a perfect analogy. In the obummer aftermath, resigned to the inevitability of HRC, most of us including you, would have taken about anyone to hold that off, we got a guy that rose to the challenge and held that off.

Yes. I held my nose for Trump.

You never seem to have any major policy complaints, just color of the plate type complaints. His tweets, his nicknames, his talking too much, the list of non-policy complaints here goes on…

Now this is where you're full of Christmas stuffing. You can wind up your AI and send it off on the pages of INGO from 2017-2021 and find many many arguments on INGO where I argued with you guys on a whole array of disagreements on Trump's handling of many issues. If you don't remember those, let's say I suspect it's selective memory.

I know you must really want to save that hungry man/colored plate thing. Sorry man. It don't play with reality. Trump did better than any Democrat would have. He actually did better than I thought he would. That does not in any way mean I agreed with Trump on all but the "plate color" issues. Not by any stretch.

As far as Trump rising to the challenge, the second worst POTUS candidate in US history beat the absolute worst, and not by a lot. The margins were razor thin in a few states. I'm pleased he pulled it off. And we were lucky as a nation that Hillary played the Tortoise and the Hare game and did not campaign where she should have, because we would not have had that non-Democrat break we had with Trump.

And that's the way I looked at it. It was a break from Democrats. Trump didn't do anything lasting that any historian will be able to point to from Obama to 0Biden. It's just a pause in the direction towards the cliff.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes. I held my nose for Trump.

Is that not a form of demanding perfection?

 

[BugI02]

Trump supporters believe they have the perfect candidate. They can find no faults in him...at least any they will admit to or any they can't excuse away.

I always wonder why this is so important to you and others like you. Why is it necessary for everyone to join in the Greek Chorus. Do you and those of similar bent not point out his flaws enough for all of us? Will more voices assuage that hunger for retribution gnawing at your vitals?

I think not, so why should I bother? The ONLY person whose actions you can control is yourself. Quit trying to dictate the behavior of others, it will only lead to tears

 

[jamil]

See! You were doing fine, right up until you feel it's necessary to throw shade, and that shade is always structured toward questioning the judgement and acumen of the people you disagree with

You were doing fine until you made it that. You know the deal. You get what you give. Mike threw some shade. I'm throwing it back.

and to subtly support your own self-aggrandizement

And that is a 'nose-holding situation' for people who wonder just who the **** appointed you judge and jury. You should have just stopped after 'Biden'

Everyone is a judge, and everyone is their own jury. It's called, opinion. It looks to me like in Mike's opinion, Trump is pretty much perfect.

In my opinion, Trump is far from perfect, and could stand much improvement. Which he cannot do because he is, as I said, a narcissistic fool. I honestly don't think he can help himself. That's how it looks to me. You're welcome to be your own judge and jury. That's the whole purpose of free speech. We get to say what we think. And then other people can make points, counterpoints, or even throw shade.

 

[BugI02]

How can it be seeking perfection when one is able to point out the flaws as well as saying they will still vote for Trump in the general election even though he is not the "perfect" candidate.

Then if you have already decided you will vote for him, what is the purpose of continually pointing out his supposed flaws? Does it stand in for washing your hands? Will it change anyones mind? Does it confer some sort of absolution because you loudly proclaim you only voted for Trump because there was no one better in your estimation?

Don't complain no one wants a sing along before you consider changing the tune

 

[jamil]

Is that not a form of demanding perfection?

No, of course not. If I demanded perfection, I wouldn't bother to hold my nose, I'd just not vote for him.

And you'd do the same. So as a thought experiment. God forbid this every happened in real life, but let's say Trump passed away from some unknown illness. Now fight your urge to head to GWP to find out if it was a conspiracy. This is my thought experiment so I get to make up the rules.

Let's say we all agree it's not a conspiracy. Natural causes. Even GWP reports that. DeSantis beats Haley for the nomination. Who do you vote for in November? Do you hold your nose and vote for DeSantis? I know you don't agree with him on a lot of stuff. But the choice is between DeSantis and Biden. Or are your disagreements with DeSantis a starving man who complains about the color of the plate?

I have a lot of disagreements with Trump on the issues. Probably 60/40 agreement/disagreement. 10% is plate color territory. 40% is nothing close to simply cosmetic disagreements. Heck, if Trump improved his game to be within just 15-20%, depending on methods. I'd probably be as giddy about Trump as you are.

Point is, you can't make the seeking perfection argument stick with most of the critics here. Their dismay, disgruntlement, disagreements, whatever you want to call it, run deeper than simply plate color. Classifying it as merely that to save the accusation is--and I'll make the charitable interpretation here--marginalizing their actual perspective.

 

[Ingomike]

No, of course not. If I demanded perfection, I wouldn't bother to hold my nose, I'd just not vote for him.

And you'd do the same. So as a thought experiment. God forbid this every happened in real life, but let's say Trump passed away from some unknown illness. Now fight your urge to head to GWP to find out if it was a conspiracy. This is my thought experiment so I get to make up the rules.

Let's say we all agree it's not a conspiracy. Natural causes. Even GWP reports that. DeSantis beats Haley for the nomination. Who do you vote for in November? Do you hold your nose and vote for DeSantis? I know you don't agree with him on a lot of stuff. But the choice is between DeSantis and Biden. Or are your disagreements with DeSantis a starving man who complains about the color of the plate?

I have a lot of disagreements with Trump on the issues. Probably 60/40 agreement/disagreement. 10% is plate color territory. 40% is nothing close to simply cosmetic disagreements. Heck, if Trump improved his game to be within just 15-20%, depending on methods. I'd probably be as giddy about Trump as you are.

Point is, you can't make the seeking perfection argument stick with most of the critics here. Their dismay, disgruntlement, disagreements, whatever you want to call it, run deeper than simply plate color. Classifying it as merely that to save the accusation is--and I'll make the charitable interpretation here--marginalizing their actual perspective.

I like DeSantis. I have nothing against DeSantis. I would vote for DeSantis without holding my nose. It is not his time, he misjudged it. He thought they would bring Trump down and he would inherit the nomination, he is not, I hate that he shot his bullet before it was the right time and he now is damaged. He can recover for another time, but he is over for this cycle.

If Trump is removed those that think that the establishment will put someone and all will be like in the past are delusional…

 

[red_zr24x4]

You were doing fine until you made it that. You know the deal. You get what you give. Mike threw some shade. I'm throwing it back.


View attachment 326698


Everyone is a judge, and everyone is their own jury. It's called, opinion. It looks to me like in Mike's opinion, Trump is pretty much perfect.

In my opinion, Trump is far from perfect, and could stand much improvement. Which he cannot do because he is, as I said, a narcissistic fool. I honestly don't think he can help himself. That's how it looks to me. You're welcome to be your own judge and jury. That's the whole purpose of free speech. We get to say what we think. And then other people can make points, counterpoints, or even throw shade.

While I agree with what your saying here, this is the problem i have with you and GFGT -
"That's the whole purpose of free speech. We get to say what we think. " while this is true and i strongly agree, the two of you are constantly also telling us what we believe.
Just a few hrs ago from GFGT " Trump supporters believe they have the perfect candidate. They can find no faults in him...at least any they will admit to or any they can't excuse away."
This is pure ******** and the both of you know it, but you (both of you) continue to repeat it

 

[jamil]

I always wonder why this is so important to you and others like you. Why is it necessary for everyone to join in the Greek Chorus. Do you and those of similar bent not point out his flaws enough for all of us? Will more voices assuage that hunger for retribution gnawing at your vitals?

I think not, so why should I bother? The ONLY person whose actions you can control is yourself. Quit trying to dictate the behavior of others, it will only lead to tears

For me, it's more a way to establish where we are with respect to what is the best discerned reality. And then to explain why we don't agree on what reality is. I don't know if it's the same for the others. I look at the things that are obviously not real, and I think it's not just obvious, it's self-evidently obvious. To the point where some of you guys will flat out ignore reality or even change positions once expressed just so that Trump can be right.

So there's that. But then there is what to do with it? I'm not trying to get you to behave like I want you to. I'm trying to articulate what I think is real and see where we disagree. And when there's shade thrown, there'll be shade thrown.

Example: Trump making Mexico pay for the wall. When Trump said he never intended to fulfill that promise, because the president doesn't have such authority, you and Mike set out to argue how he technically could have done it through tariffs or whatnot. What he could have done to technically have fulfilled the promise was completely irrelevant once Trump admitted he was never going to fulfill it.

It is self-evident that reality was completely, unequivocally, declared by Trump himself. But you guys needed Trump to be right. What are we supposed to do with that? When I make those kinds of points I'm not trying to control you. You're free to believe whatever you want. And I'm free to counter or agree with what you say. We're just people arguing on the internet about **** we actually can't control.

I don't think you needed the win as badly as you thought you did. Every politician has that same problem. They make campaign promises they know they won't or can't keep. I don't like it. I wish politicians would tell the truth. But they lie because they want to win. And that's not an excuse for politicians. It's just what it is. Trump is no different.

 

[jamil]

Then if you have already decided you will vote for him, what is the purpose of continually pointing out his supposed flaws? Does it stand in for washing your hands? Will it change anyones mind? Does it confer some sort of absolution because you loudly proclaim you only voted for Trump because there was no one better in your estimation?

Don't complain no one wants a sing along before you consider changing the tune

Because they're flaws. If that's your position, why don't you just say, "so what?" when people continually point out flaws? Why do you argue against somethign that is as self evident as Trump's own words, for a technical win? I'm not trying to control you and make you say "so what?" it's that I'm curious why you don't, because that seems to me a better reaction than trying to argue for technical wins.

Another thing. that washing hands thing really doesn't fit here. It again demonstrates to me a lack of awarenes of what the other is saying. I don't think I'll change your mind, but I'll probably see the difference in your reality and mine a lot clearer. And Idunno. Maybe not. I probably don't understand half the things you say either. We're probably wired from different planets.

 

[jamil]

While I agree with what your saying here, this is the problem i have with you and GFGT -
"That's the whole purpose of free speech. We get to say what we think. " while this is true and i strongly agree, the two of you are constantly also telling us what we believe.
Just a few hrs ago from GFGT " Trump supporters believe they have the perfect candidate. They can find no faults in him...at least any they will admit to or any they can't excuse away."
This is pure ******** and the both of you know it, but you (both of you) continue to repeat it

I don't recall you doing this. But I can't count how many times I've had to tell Mike and Bug to stop saying I'm saying somethign I haven't said. I mean, they can come up with some pretty off the wall **** that they claim I said. I get that sometimes people say things, and the words they use imply other meanings. But a lot of that stuff is beyond Kathy Newman level, "so you're saying...".

But let's talk about "Trump supporters believe they have the perfect candidate." That's an example where it seems the most obvious cause must be that they believe that. That it's inexplicable otherwise. I'll trot out the "make mexico pay for the wall promise" to defend the statement. The ardent Trumpers will argue against obvious reality to make a save, to the point where they look for technical ways Trump could have said he made the Mexicans pay for the wall. Like if he had raised tariffs and then used that money to pay for the wall. Nevermind that not much of the wall got payed for, or could have gotten payed for in that way. That anyone could objectively argue that he did or could would be surprising, given Trump's own statement that it was only a campagin promise he had no intention of keeping.

Another example, in a discussion about Trump taking credit for saving millions of lives because of Operation Warp Speed, someone actually changed their position on the vaccines to maintain a belief that Trump was telling the truth. What are we supposed to do with that? What other conclusions are viable for why someone would do that? The vaccines don't work, but Trump says he saved millions of lives with them, and now they work? WTF? No. That smells to me like defending a belief in perfection. Make the case for a better conclusion than that. Because I'd rather believe it's something else.

 

[KG1]

Then if you have already decided you will vote for him, what is the purpose of continually pointing out his supposed flaws? Does it stand in for washing your hands? Will it change anyones mind? Does it confer some sort of absolution because you loudly proclaim you only voted for Trump because there was no one better in your estimation?

Don't complain no one wants a sing along before you consider changing the tune

You're right Bug. When one declares that they will vote for someone then it's time to stop being critical.

 

[jamil]

Really?

“this trial comes weeks after the end of his term, another first.”

Although since he was not convicted there was nothing for the courts to rule on…

Second Impeachment of Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump faces his second impeachment trial in the Senate on Feb. 9, when lawmakers will begin the process of considering whether to convict him on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

www.pbs.org

This is not to be interpreted that I support impeachment after a term is over.

That was ramrodded through. Only a sitting president can be impeached. If you want to punish a crime done while in office, charge him personally when he's not in office. Then the courts, if they're not tainted, can decide.

 

[BugI02]

Example: Trump making Mexico pay for the wall. When Trump said he never intended to fulfill that promise, because the president doesn't have such authority, you and Mike set out to argue how he technically could have done it through tariffs or whatnot. What he could have done to technically have fulfilled the promise was completely irrelevant once Trump admitted he was never going to fulfill it.

I know I'll be playing into your hand, but that change took place over an elapsed time of 7 years and although (for any other politician) you acknowledge that people's positions change with time and they reconsider past beliefs, you won't even consider the reasonable doubt that his previous position was said as part of a campaign at a time when he knew little of what would actually be possible as president (especially given the unprecedented and extra-legal war waged against his every move) and perhaps his current position is calibrated to the realities of the moment

And, of course, you were one of the ones alibiing DeSantis when he folded (like a cheap deck chair) on his position that Ukraine/Russia was a territorial dispute and not existential to the US after only TWO DAYS of pushback from establishment pols, as if a strong candidate should need to retcon what he REALLY meant

I'd rather have someone who 'went to the wall' on the commitment he made, in every legal way he could, in the most important respect - actually building a wall - than have someone who collapses at the first challenge. This is the pattern that is so annoying about your little clique, magnify anything that Trump can be blamed for all out of proportion while giving the shortcomings of others a full pardon. Fewer and fewer are buying what you're selling all the time

 

[jamil]

You're right Bug. When one declares that they will vote for someone then it's time to stop being critical.

I have my doubts that would be reciprocated.

 

[BugI02]

You're right Bug. When one declares that they will vote for someone then it's time to stop being critical.

Well, you're not convincing anyone else but maybe you can still convince yourself

 

[foszoe]

“If elected the long assault on the Second Amendment will he not ver….”

I’m sure we can expect more of the same if he gets reelected.

Has Trump denied he ever posted that or his account was hacked or the person he has post stuff for him betrayed him or something?

 

[foszoe]

View attachment 326583

How many filters on on that face?

 

[foszoe]

No.

Like a Pope, only better.

 

[foszoe]

You're take is that the President can murder someone and there is no recourse? I would certainly hope if it was proven while he was in office, that he would be impeached and found guilty. Then he would be tried in a court.

If it was proven after he was out of office, skip to the trial.

Wasn't this a Jack Ryan Novel?