50.09 wrote:
Red Tide Rick Scott's FL lead for the Senate is ever shrinking.
Scott 50.09% -- 4,094,763 votes
Nelson 49.91% -- 4,079,692 votes
Of course it's shrinking. You don't expect Scott to win do you? Dems took care of this one.
50.09 wrote:
Red Tide Rick Scott's FL lead for the Senate is ever shrinking.
Scott 50.09% -- 4,094,763 votes
Nelson 49.91% -- 4,079,692 votes
Of course it's shrinking. You don't expect Scott to win do you? Dems took care of this one.
Whatabout..... wrote:
L L wrote:
I have to say that Benghazi literally was a witch hunt.
They saw Hillary as a witch and had to come up with some trial for her.
Does anyone think that Hillary was maliciously irresponsible in her actions that lead to the death of those four Americans who were stationed in a dangerous part of the world?
As opposed to, does anyone think that Trump broke laws and crossed serious ethics lines to gain political power and money?
Why do you guys ALWAYS bring up Hillary? She's not the President.
Because Trump ALWAYS says he is part of a witch hunt and ran a campaign chant of "lock her up".
I'm on pins and needles here - lots of intel suggest some major goings on at the office of the special counsel.
Will someone named Trump or Kushner be indicted?
I don't think anyone would be surprised if Ivanka, Jr or Jared were indicted. NY State will get them if Mueller doesn't.
agip wrote:
I'm on pins and needles here - lots of intel suggest some major goings on at the office of the special counsel.
Will someone named Trump or Kushner be indicted?
I don't think anyone would be surprised if Ivanka, Jr or Jared were indicted. NY State will get them if Mueller doesn't.
These are the kind of indictments that I mentioned earlier in the thread that could lead to Trump's resignation in exchange for leniency on his family.
Racket wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I used to believe that but I am not so sure after the strong turnout in the midterms and good performance in the states he helped campaign. They have a lot more information now and are ok with it - if they overlooked it from the start it was intentional. You could have Googled trump any time prior to 2016 and a lot would have surfaced on the first page. I stopped giving trumpers the benefit of the doubt. They don’t mind that he’s a criminal as long as he doesn’t get caught and keeps owning the libs.
What do you mean you stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt? There's a lot of good and honest people out there who feel marginalized and who are being easily taken advantage of by talk show radio hosts.
I think most people are good and do not wish to harm others. However, I think a vast majority of trumpers feel anger toward what what they perceive is the evil left. That they still support him because they feel marginalized is not good enough after what they have seen for 2 years. Those poor German citizens that were under Hitler’s control??? Trump is only powerful because they continue to support him. We are adults and make our decisions consciously. That many decide to watch FOX and listen to conservative radio is a function of what they are drawn to, no one has forced that on them and no one forces them to agree to everything they see and hear. The accountability is ultimately with the people who vote.
Trollminator wrote:
Racket wrote:
What do you mean you stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt? There's a lot of good and honest people out there who feel marginalized and who are being easily taken advantage of by talk show radio hosts.
I think most people are good and do not wish to harm others. However, I think a vast majority of trumpers feel anger toward what what they perceive is the evil left. That they still support him because they feel marginalized is not good enough after what they have seen for 2 years. Those poor German citizens that were under Hitler’s control??? Trump is only powerful because they continue to support him. We are adults and make our decisions consciously. That many decide to watch FOX and listen to conservative radio is a function of what they are drawn to, no one has forced that on them and no one forces them to agree to everything they see and hear. The accountability is ultimately with the people who vote.
the problem is that people have an innate desire to be ruled by a strong fist. You can talk all you want about Americans loving and breathing democracy, but human nature has a very large piece that longs to be ruled over. You see it everywhere.
In the past the political parties and press have managed to keep candidates from going that route. But with the advent of Trump and right wing media unisphere, that desire is coming out into the open in America.
Will it disappear when trump fades from the scene? I hope so.
But to your point, we have to understand that many trumpettes, alt righters and Republicans and the like really aren't fans of democracy. They think the browns and the blacks and libs will lead us to being Venezuela, and they have been trying to subvert democracy for years, to that end.
I'm thinking voter suppression mostly, but also the refusal to push back against trump's anti-constitional stands. The right loves trump because he shares their worries about the future of America and wants a strong leader to keep us from veering off course.
so to finish the point, yes, we can hold Trumpism against trump supporters. They aren't democratic, they aren't fans of the American ideals, they are racial hegemonists and they should be called out for it.
agip wrote:
so to finish the point, yes, we can hold Trumpism against trump supporters. They aren't democratic, they aren't fans of the American ideals, they are racial hegemonists and they should be called out for it.
How should we call them out for it. At the workplace, outside their home, when they are pumping gas? Should we just chide them anonymously on boards? What's your plan?
Clear it Up wrote:
agip wrote:
so to finish the point, yes, we can hold Trumpism against trump supporters. They aren't democratic, they aren't fans of the American ideals, they are racial hegemonists and they should be called out for it.
How should we call them out for it. At the workplace, outside their home, when they are pumping gas? Should we just chide them anonymously on boards? What's your plan?
Well, tRumpee, what is your plan to stop all the losing by tRump? Abandon tRump is the obvious solution. Butt, what is 'your' plan?
At the current rate of vote loss, it shouldn’t take much longer...
Clear it Up wrote:
agip wrote:
so to finish the point, yes, we can hold Trumpism against trump supporters. They aren't democratic, they aren't fans of the American ideals, they are racial hegemonists and they should be called out for it.
How should we call them out for it. At the workplace, outside their home, when they are pumping gas? Should we just chide them anonymously on boards? What's your plan?
vote
jesseriley wrote:
At the current rate of vote loss, it shouldn’t take much longer...
You mean the current rate of Trumpism voter loss.
agip wrote:
the problem is that people have an innate desire to be ruled by a strong fist. You can talk all you want about Americans loving and breathing democracy, but human nature has a very large piece that longs to be ruled over. You see it everywhere.
In the past the political parties and press have managed to keep candidates from going that route. But with the advent of Trump and right wing media unisphere, that desire is coming out into the open in America.
Will it disappear when trump fades from the scene? I hope so.
But to your point, we have to understand that many trumpettes, alt righters and Republicans and the like really aren't fans of democracy. They think the browns and the blacks and libs will lead us to being Venezuela, and they have been trying to subvert democracy for years, to that end.
I'm thinking voter suppression mostly, but also the refusal to push back against trump's anti-constitional stands. The right loves trump because he shares their worries about the future of America and wants a strong leader to keep us from veering off course.
This ^ is why you guys lost and why you will lose again in 2020.
You understand nothing - not even your own pomposity.
agip wrote:
Clear it Up wrote:
How should we call them out for it. At the workplace, outside their home, when they are pumping gas? Should we just chide them anonymously on boards? What's your plan?
vote
Clear it Up is what is known as a concern troll; a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.
Lying Gary wrote:
This ^ is why you guys lost and why you will lose again in 2020.
You understand nothing - not even your own pomposity.
^ The fear is strong in this one. All the losing by Trump makes it so.
trumpers in fear wrote:
Lying Gary wrote:
This ^ is why you guys lost and why you will lose again in 2020.
You understand nothing - not even your own pomposity.
^ The fear is strong in this one. All the losing by Trump makes it so.
Dang, you are dumb! I'd bet that every single reader of my post got it . . . every single one except you.
Good job!
Lying Gary wrote:
agip wrote:
the problem is that people have an innate desire to be ruled by a strong fist. You can talk all you want about Americans loving and breathing democracy, but human nature has a very large piece that longs to be ruled over. You see it everywhere.
In the past the political parties and press have managed to keep candidates from going that route. But with the advent of Trump and right wing media unisphere, that desire is coming out into the open in America.
Will it disappear when trump fades from the scene? I hope so.
But to your point, we have to understand that many trumpettes, alt righters and Republicans and the like really aren't fans of democracy. They think the browns and the blacks and libs will lead us to being Venezuela, and they have been trying to subvert democracy for years, to that end.
I'm thinking voter suppression mostly, but also the refusal to push back against trump's anti-constitional stands. The right loves trump because he shares their worries about the future of America and wants a strong leader to keep us from veering off course.
This ^ is why you guys lost and why you will lose again in 2020.
You understand nothing - not even your own pomposity.
oh we understand your voter suppression, gerrymandering, love for lies, congressmen bending over for trump and abandoning their oversight responsibilities, and Fox News very very well. No worries about what we understand.
We all saw the depth of that understanding in the midterm results. Come close to that in 2020 and it will be an electoral college wipeout in the favor of the Dems. Good luck wining PA, WI and MI again.
L L wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm on pins and needles here - lots of intel suggest some major goings on at the office of the special counsel.
Will someone named Trump or Kushner be indicted?
I don't think anyone would be surprised if Ivanka, Jr or Jared were indicted. NY State will get them if Mueller doesn't.
These are the kind of indictments that I mentioned earlier in the thread that could lead to Trump's resignation in exchange for leniency on his family.
And how would that work? Who could possibly make that kind of a deal?
agip wrote:
Lying Gary wrote:
This ^ is why you guys lost and why you will lose again in 2020.
You understand nothing - not even your own pomposity.
oh we understand your voter suppression, gerrymandering, love for lies, congressmen bending over for trump and abandoning their oversight responsibilities, and Fox News very very well. No worries about what we understand.
We all saw the depth of that understanding in the midterm results. Come close to that in 2020 and it will be an electoral college wipeout in the favor of the Dems. Good luck wining PA, WI and MI again.
OK, make that two very, very dumb dudes!
Good job!
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
These are the kind of indictments that I mentioned earlier in the thread that could lead to Trump's resignation in exchange for leniency on his family.
And how would that work? Who could possibly make that kind of a deal?
Fat Hurts is what is known as a concern troll; a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.