Trump 2024 — The second term

[BugI02]

Rommel?

The guy who was offered a choice of a trial or a cyanide pill for his guilt in wartime atrocities, and chose the cyanide…that Rommel?

Bug, if nazi apologetics are the best support you can come up with for your argument, it isn’t a very good one.

Well, I can see you will be destined to repeat the past because you certainly don't remember it or understand it

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, no leftists have any real understanding of fascism and everyone who disagrees with them is a nazi so why would one expect them to have any real understanding of even the recent past

In 1944, Rommel was implicated in the 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler. Because of Rommel's status as a national hero, Hitler wanted to eliminate him quietly instead of having him immediately executed, as many other plotters were. Rommel was given a choice between suicide, in return for assurances that his reputation would remain intact and that his family would not be persecuted following his death, or facing a trial that would result in his disgrace and execution; he chose the former and took a cyanide pill. Rommel was given a state funeral, and it was announced that he had succumbed to his injuries from the strafing of his staff car in Normandy.

 

[Ingomike]

Tucker Carlson slams DeSantis's online backers: 'the nastiest, the stupidest'

Carlson then accused DeSantis of bowing to pressure from donor Ken Griffin and flipping his position to support further aid to Ukraine.

justthenews.com

 

[Mij]

C'mon IM you're just baiting him into coming back when he said he was done so you can bust his chops for coming back.

No prob. You can read a boot like him a mile away.

Some folks just can’t accept a defeat.

“On Any Given Sunday “

It doesn’t matter what I say in type, what matters is what I do in the real world.

Besides, I’ve got skin thicker than a water buffalo.

It’s the internet…….

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well, I can see you will be destined to repeat the past because you certainly don't remember it or understand it

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, no leftists have any real understanding of fascism and everyone who disagrees with them is a nazi so why would one expect them to have any real understanding of even the recent past

Lol…you literally compared Trump to Hitler…in a positive light…to try to prove your point.

Your slip is showing, bug.

 

[jamil]

Well Christians did that with the Bible for about 1000 years. Then really split up over 200 years. It's been 200 years for the constitution but I imagine you'd say we quit following the constitution years ago.

Yet most groups will tell you they are following the Bible as written even though they disagree.

I figure, assuming religion ought to be ranked a little higher than politics, it's too late for this follow or not dichotomy

That's really not what happened. In the middle ages ordinary people did not have access to the Bible. It wasn't until after the printing press, when the Bible was translated into languages ordinary people spoke, that they had access. After the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church no longer had a monopoly on interpreting the Bible in the West. And that's just counting the West.

But, if your point is that when people have access to the same text, they interpret it according to their own biases, proclivities, politics, in-group, etcetera, that's true. Now, most people in the world have access to a Bible if they want to avail themselves. And now there are several hundred Christian sects and denominations.

Everyone who reads the constitution will read into it their own biases, cultures, proclivities and whatnot. But, you're right about dichotomizing one's own interpretations. What they're really saying, is if you're not my denomination of constitution believer, you're not really following the constitution. Which is the same thing people do in Christianity. If you're not my denomination, you're not following the Bible. Might as well be the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[jamil]

At the time I looked it up Romney lost by 350,000 votes over a handful of states, not quite the landslide the media narrated. Trump is still the only incumbent to increase his vote totals over his first election and likely will again if he is the nominee…

It was a electoral landslide. Which doesn't reflect the will of the people, per se. It reflects the will of the states, which is what the founders had in mind. The US is a federation of the people organized by states where the states decide who will be the chief executive.

 

[jamil]

And they will not be the last. Just wait until Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania do it as well.

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal

The Colorado court ruling barring Donald Trump from ballots in the state is the first time a court has rule he is disqualified for engaging in insurrection.

www.cnbc.com

It's not like Colorado was ever on the table in the first place for Trump. I've seen that state turn from red to purple to solid blue as the steady influx of Democrats flooded into the state over the past 20 years.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 319873

I mean. Technically, he's no longer a choice for primaries. But assuming he is the GOP nominee, the Colorado SC has decided that it will dictate that the state's electors will vote for a Democrat, regardless of what Coloradans want.

 

[LeftyGunner]

It's not like Colorado was ever on the table in the first place for Trump. I've seen that state turn from red to purple to solid blue as the steady influx of Democrats flooded into the state over the past 20 years.

In 2016 I did not cast a vote in the presidential race, but I voted entirely Republican down-ticket. My hopes were to serve up the most unfriendly congress possible for what I assumed was an impending HRC presidency.

In 2020 I voted against Trump, but still voted entirely Republican down-ticket. Same reasons…I didn’t want Trump, but I didn’t want Biden to have a friendly congress.

In 2022 I voted straight-ticket democrat. After Jan6 I vote against Trump and anyone or anything that props him up.

If it ends up being Trump v Biden again in 24, I intend to vote straight-ticket Democrat…a purely anti-Trump, ani-MAGA vote.

Trump is HRC in 2016…except HRC motivated moderates and independents to stay home, and Trump motivates them to vote Democrat.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I mean. Technically, he's no longer a choice for primaries. But assuming he is the GOP nominee, the Colorado SC has decided that it will dictate that the state's electors will vote for a Democrat, regardless of what Coloradans want.

The state Republican Party is still entitled to put a candidate on the ballot and, if chosen by the voters, those electors would not count toward Biden, even if they don’t count for trump.

 

[jamil]

Lol…you literally compared Trump to Hitler…in a positive light…to try to prove your point.

Your slip is showing, bug.

This is a self-own. Let's recap.

Trump picks lawyers like Hitler picked generals.

Jetta compared Trump to Hitler, saying that Hitler was incompetent in choosing generals.

Two words

Erwin Rommel

Then Bug provided a counterpoint, a general who was competent. Actually most of Hitler's generals were competent. It was Hitler who was not competent. If Hitler's generals had control of all military decisions, the war may have turned out differently.

Well, I can see you will be destined to repeat the past because you certainly don't remember it or understand it

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, no leftists have any real understanding of fascism and everyone who disagrees with them is a nazi so why would one expect them to have any real understanding of even the recent past

I'm not defending Bug here. I'm pointing out your self-own, where you proved Bug's point that you don't understand history or fascism (or you're misapplying it accidentally or intentionally). Also, Bug did not compare Trump to Hitler, JK did.

 

[jamil]

The state Republican Party is still entitled to put a candidate on the ballot and, if chosen by the voters, those electors would not count toward Biden, even if they don’t count for trump.

That's a facile point. You know that Trump is likely to win the GOP nomination. He'll be on the ballot in all other states, unless a few other unhinged states try to go rogue. So the state SC decided that the GOP nominee nationwide will not be a choice for Coloradans.

This is not constitutional. They're misusing the 14 amendment. They're just declaring that he led an insurrection, without that having been litigated.

I would grant that if convicted of insurrection, not putting him on the ballot would be within the constitution. But taking him off the ballot on the whim that he led an insurrection, this is just partisan ******** to ensure a Democrat wins. Prove me wrong.

 

[LeftyGunner]

This is a self-own. Let's recap.


Jetta compared Trump to Hitler, saying that Hitler was incompetent in choosing generals.


Then Bug provided a counterpoint, a general who was competent. Actually most of Hitler's generals were competent. It was Hitler who was not competent. If Hitler's generals had control of all military decisions, the war may have turned out differently.



I'm not defending Bug here. I'm pointing out your self-own, where you proved Bug's point that you don't understand history or fascism (or you're misapplying it accidentally or intentionally). Also, Bug did not compare Trump to Hitler, JK did.

I will take the self-own, as you call it. I am not an expert on history, especially surrounding the Nazis…those guys don’t get spoken of very highly in my circles.

If we are going to belabor the point, though…

Bug was trying to make the point that Rommel was an example of Hitler having “Good Generals”.

First, I think making that point at all is in poor taste, and ultimately counter-productive…it affirms JK’s association of Trump with Hitler.

Second, Bug’s example of a “Good General” was a guy who plotted to kill his boss, and I don’t think it really holds up to scrutiny.

 

[oze]

Rommel?

The guy who was offered a choice of a trial or a cyanide pill for his guilt in wartime atrocities, and chose the cyanide…that Rommel?

Bug, if nazi apologetics are the best support you can come up with for your argument, it isn’t a very good one.

Wartime atrocities? WTF? Unless by "wartime atrocities " you mean "accused of participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler". THAT ROMMEL.

 

[oze]

Second, Bug’s example of a “Good General” was a guy who plotted to kill his boss, and I don’t think it really holds up to scrutiny.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Rommel was a brilliant tactician who opposed Hitler. That makes Rommel a bad guy? Nazism aside, Hitler's insane attempt to micromanage was, in a large part, costing Germany dearly, and Rommel knew it had to end.

 

[jamil]

I will take the self-own, as you call it. I am not an expert on history, especially surrounding the Nazis…those guys don’t get spoken of very highly in my circles.

Really? Do you think they're spoken of highly in anyone's circles? Speaking to points of facts about history makes no statement of approval.

If we are going to belabor the point, though…

Bug was trying to make the point that Rommel was an example of Hitler having “Good Generals”.

It was in the context of competency, that Trump hires incompetent lawyers. That was what JK was getting at. Rommel, was not incompetent. And early on, the top brass were not incompetent. It was Hitler who was militarily incompetent. And towards the end he started replacing generals with fools who would not push back on his idiotic ideas.

First, I think making that point at all is in poor taste, and ultimately counter-productive…it affirms JK’s association of Trump with Hitler.

It only affirms JK's association of Trump with Hitler to people who think at a superficial level. You thought he was defending Hitler for his choices of Generals. The deeper point was that it's a bad analogy. But you missed that point. And took the self own.

Second, Bug’s example of a “Good General” was a guy who plotted to kill his boss, and I don’t think it really holds up to scrutiny.

It does. It proves his competency and that he wasn't just a yes man. Is it not also the opinion of anti-Trump people that Trump hires "yes" people? I've said it. I think that's true. I think Trump likes to be said yes to. Would be great if Trump accidentally hired a no person once or twice.

But again, if Bug's point was to dismantle the analogy of Trump == Hitler, using Rommel as the counterpoint was perfect. Very competent as a Military strategist. Not a yes man. Now tell me you wouldn't orgasm at least a little if one of Trump's own people took him out.

 

[LeftyGunner]

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Rommel was a brilliant tactician who opposed Hitler. That makes Rommel a bad guy? Nazism aside, Hitler's insane attempt to micromanage was, in a large part, costing Germany dearly, and Rommel knew it had to end.

My apologies, I mistook Bug’s defense of Trump for a defense of Hitler.

 

[LeftyGunner]

But again, if Bug's point was to dismantle the analogy of Trump == Hitler, using Rommel as the counterpoint was perfect. Very competent as a Military strategist. Not a yes man.

That was my mistake…I thought bug was defending Hitler.

Edit…okay, I really like your explanation, but it makes me ask: even with the additional context, doesn’t using Rommel as a example go more to prove JKs point than bug’s?

It seems like taking that reasoning to its logical conclusion would be saying that the “Good Laywers” that Trump has picked are the ones that turned against him…right?

 

[jamil]

Wartime atrocities? WTF? Unless by "wartime atrocities " you mean "accused of participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler". THAT ROMMEL.

I mean. Rommel did commit some wartime atrocities, but that is beside the point of the comparison of Trump picking lawyers to Hitler picking generals. THAT was about picking competent people.

 

[jamil]

That was my mistake…I thought bug was defending Hitler.

Okay. But not a lot of thought could have been devoted to it. It was a really easy one to get right.

And, don't get me wrong here. It's easy to do. I've done it myself many times and will probably do it many more. It's making assumptions towards a person with whom you have an adversarial interaction. I've gotten Bug wrong a time or two myself. But, I mean, I'm usually right