you ever wonder why the GOP is so aligned with Putin? Ever? And why the trump campaign worked hand in hand with Russia to get elected?
No, I don't. Do you ever stop using Putin as a boogieman for everything? Until now, the GOP couldn't have rubber-stamped Ukraine funding faster if they tried. About time they tried to get something in return.
Thinking about this. "About time they tried to get something in return."
As if defending democracies and stopping an aggressive power in Europe is a Democratic Party plank and not an American plank.
Turn it around - say the Ds said 'ok Rs, we're not voting for funds for Ukraine unless we get DACA legalized' or something like that.
You'd sputter 'what does DACA have to do with Ukraine? Why are Dems holding Ukraine hostage?' And you'd be correct.
That's what the Rs are doing. Weird that you think the Rs should get a partisan thing done in order to get them to do the right thing.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
No, I don't. Do you ever stop using Putin as a boogieman for everything? Until now, the GOP couldn't have rubber-stamped Ukraine funding faster if they tried. About time they tried to get something in return.
Thinking about this. "About time they tried to get something in return."
As if defending democracies and stopping an aggressive power in Europe is a Democratic Party plank and not an American plank.
Turn it around - say the Ds said 'ok Rs, we're not voting for funds for Ukraine unless we get DACA legalized' or something like that.
You'd sputter 'what does DACA have to do with Ukraine? Why are Dems holding Ukraine hostage?' And you'd be correct.
That's what the Rs are doing.
Making deals is how things get done in congress. Remember how much useless Democrat agenda items they threw in the omnibus spending bill at the end of 2022, while Mitch Mcconnel basically only negotiated to get more Ukraine funding? Dumb on his part.
Though I do think funding Ukraine is mostly a Democrat party priority at this point. Most Americans side with the Republicans on this.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Thinking about this. "About time they tried to get something in return."
As if defending democracies and stopping an aggressive power in Europe is a Democratic Party plank and not an American plank.
Turn it around - say the Ds said 'ok Rs, we're not voting for funds for Ukraine unless we get DACA legalized' or something like that.
You'd sputter 'what does DACA have to do with Ukraine? Why are Dems holding Ukraine hostage?' And you'd be correct.
That's what the Rs are doing.
Making deals is how things get done in congress. Remember how much useless Democrat agenda items they threw in the omnibus spending bill at the end of 2022, while Mitch Mcconnel basically only negotiated to get more Ukraine funding? Dumb on his part.
Though I do think funding Ukraine is mostly a Democrat party priority at this point. Most Americans side with the Republicans on this.
making deals is how things get done in congress, but not in wartime, with allies dying every day and funds running out to keep them in the fight.
Americans want to aid Ukraine. An American priority, not a party thing. Except for m'aga. those people want russia to win and keep going, just to teach those euro libs a lesson.
Only a leftist would attack the messenger for pointing out the raging antisemitism of the left.
The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn are not antisemites. They have condemned antisemitism repeatedly. MIT president is even Jewish
The obvious takeaways from that video:
1) The presidents largely come across as sniveling CYA politicians. Pretty gross. Big surprise.
2) The MASSIVE Trumper self-righteously questioning them is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE hypocrite.
Reverse positions: "Elise, you fu***** DB, Yes or No question: Has Donald Trump disqualified himself from being the most powerful person in the world as a result of the following actions and statements [Read a few dozen] ?"
She would fail her test far, far worse than the university presidents did theirs.
I was honestly asking to see what kind of responses I would get. It seems that the talking points are already implanted.
I know that the term 'talking point' has some inflammatory connotations, but I use it because that's what is given to the media (by both political parties) to try to use publicity to drive a narrative. So I ask that you keep that in mind and consider what I write below as a respectful response.
I think what those who (above) posted about a Constitutional crisis, power grab, etc. are incorrect. Think about what would be required for this to happen.
1) Trump would have to actually use presidential power illegally (not just in a way that isn't liked).
2) The other branches of government would have to not act to remove him from power. This means that those representatives would have to not only have to agree with Trump but would have to be willing to throw away 247 years of a democratic republic because they want an elderly man to become dictator for life.
3) The military would have to go along for the ride.
4) Trump supporters (who are also ordinary Americans who value a democratic republic) would have to value outcome over process so much that they would support such a thing. The rest of America would have to significantly support or go along with this as well.
I think it's worth considering that these things are not likely to happen and that this is a narrative being put forth to try to influence the election.
If it matters, for context I am someone who finds Trump as a person imperfect and off-putting. I wouldn't want to hang out with him. That doesn't mean I would vote for any of the recent Democratic presidential nominees, let alone the DNC puppet we have in office right now. I think it's potentially dangerous to have Biden in office with the current instability in the world as well.
The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn are not antisemites. They have condemned antisemitism repeatedly. MIT president is even Jewish
The obvious takeaways from that video:
1) The presidents largely come across as sniveling CYA politicians. Pretty gross. Big surprise.
2) The MASSIVE Trumper self-righteously questioning them is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE hypocrite.
Reverse positions: "Elise, you fu***** DB, Yes or No question: Has Donald Trump disqualified himself from being the most powerful person in the world as a result of the following actions and statements [Read a few dozen] ?"
She would fail her test far, far worse than the university presidents did theirs.
much of her m'aga crew is white supremacists, equally hating of Jews as the Harvard activists. Total hypocrisy from stefanik. She is the opposite of an honest broker.
The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn are not antisemites. They have condemned antisemitism repeatedly. MIT president is even Jewish
The obvious takeaways from that video:
1) The presidents largely come across as sniveling CYA politicians. Pretty gross. Big surprise.
2) The MASSIVE Trumper self-righteously questioning them is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE hypocrite.
Reverse positions: "Elise, you fu***** DB, Yes or No question: Has Donald Trump disqualified himself from being the most powerful person in the world as a result of the following actions and statements [Read a few dozen] ?"
She would fail her test far, far worse than the university presidents did theirs.
Oh, and since I don't like to go too long without pointing how much adolt sucks, a few comments:
1) Chances that adolt sincerely gives a single s*** about antisemitism? Zero.
2) Chances that he's antisemitic himself? Quite good.
3) Chances that he's a sexist, homophobic, and racist? Really, really good (100% on the first one).
4) Regarding that, chances that, should Elise one day utter a single, semi-honest thing about how horrible Trump is (she's no doubt plenty smart enough to see it), adolt would immediately label her a worthless piggish wh*** RINO, just like Liz Cheney? 100%.
I was honestly asking to see what kind of responses I would get. It seems that the talking points are already implanted.
I know that the term 'talking point' has some inflammatory connotations, but I use it because that's what is given to the media (by both political parties) to try to use publicity to drive a narrative. So I ask that you keep that in mind and consider what I write below as a respectful response.
I think what those who (above) posted about a Constitutional crisis, power grab, etc. are incorrect. Think about what would be required for this to happen.
1) Trump would have to actually use presidential power illegally (not just in a way that isn't liked).
2) The other branches of government would have to not act to remove him from power. This means that those representatives would have to not only have to agree with Trump but would have to be willing to throw away 247 years of a democratic republic because they want an elderly man to become dictator for life.
3) The military would have to go along for the ride.
4) Trump supporters (who are also ordinary Americans who value a democratic republic) would have to value outcome over process so much that they would support such a thing. The rest of America would have to significantly support or go along with this as well.
I think it's worth considering that these things are not likely to happen and that this is a narrative being put forth to try to influence the election.
If it matters, for context I am someone who finds Trump as a person imperfect and off-putting. I wouldn't want to hang out with him. That doesn't mean I would vote for any of the recent Democratic presidential nominees, let alone the DNC puppet we have in office right now. I think it's potentially dangerous to have Biden in office with the current instability in the world as well.
you are naive.
presidents are told what to do by courts all the time. It's how the system works. Trump will Lalso break rules and be corrected by courts....but he will just not stop if the courts tell him to stop.
you have any faith whatsoever in voting republicans? They are nominating an con man, indicted, impeached, etc. A guy WHO IS TELLING US he will arrest his opponents. Trumpers are telling us they will be authoritarians. And still, the republicans will vote for them. That's how much the republicans hate the Dems. They will never turn on trump. Never ever ever.
And elected Rs will never impeach and remove him.
I have no idea how you can be so confident when virtually every single thing points the opposite direction. You think the Rs haven't spent 3 years analyzing why trump failed in his first term? They literally have whole teams working out how to defeat the constituton.
The Republicans are overwhelmingly voting for a president who, literally, called for the termination of the Constitution. And you have a naive faith they will turn on trump to defend that Constitution.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
1) The presidents largely come across as sniveling CYA politicians. Pretty gross. Big surprise.
2) The MASSIVE Trumper self-righteously questioning them is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE hypocrite.
Reverse positions: "Elise, you fu***** DB, Yes or No question: Has Donald Trump disqualified himself from being the most powerful person in the world as a result of the following actions and statements [Read a few dozen] ?"
She would fail her test far, far worse than the university presidents did theirs.
much of her m'aga crew is white supremacists, equally hating of Jews as the Harvard activists. Total hypocrisy from stefanik. She is the opposite of an honest broker.
Do you think there’s any reason to criticize Israel at all? Do you think all of those Harvard student protesters just hate Jews?
much of her m'aga crew is white supremacists, equally hating of Jews as the Harvard activists. Total hypocrisy from stefanik. She is the opposite of an honest broker.
Do you think there’s any reason to criticize Israel at all? Do you think all of those Harvard student protesters just hate Jews?
I don't think that you asked ME, but I'll give my thoughts for the hell of it:
1) It's strange/hard to imagine that very many very liberal Americans are antisemitic. I hope that I'm not being naive about that.
2) However, even if the answer to #1 is good (not many actual antisemitic liberals), if you're perhaps somewhat blindly supporting murderous antisemitic elements because you feel sorry for average Palestinians, then your ARE, unfortunately, supporting antisemitic (and indeed, genocidal) efforts. Something to be AWFULLY careful about. My guess is that lots of those students are too immature and too self-righteous to be pulling off that balance. And so if they end up being labeled antisemitic, I'm not going to shed any tears for them.
3) As alluded to in my previous post, I think that VERY few Trumpers are sincerely concerned about antisemitism. Indeed, antisemitism seems RIGHT up their alley. It's JUST ANOTHER sad, utterly transparent "opportunity" to demonize the libs.....while energetically supporting far, far worse.
Making deals is how things get done in congress. Remember how much useless Democrat agenda items they threw in the omnibus spending bill at the end of 2022, while Mitch Mcconnel basically only negotiated to get more Ukraine funding? Dumb on his part.
Though I do think funding Ukraine is mostly a Democrat party priority at this point. Most Americans side with the Republicans on this.
making deals is how things get done in congress, but not in wartime, with allies dying every day and funds running out to keep them in the fight.
Americans want to aid Ukraine. An American priority, not a party thing. Except for m'aga. those people want russia to win and keep going, just to teach those euro libs a lesson.
Look up just about any recent poll and you'll see most Americans disagree.
"Only 41 percent of respondents said they agreed that the United States should provide weapons to Ukraine, down from 65 percent of respondents who said the same in a June 2023 survey." [1]
37% believe "believe the U.S. should continue to provide aid as long as Ukraine requests it." [2]
The share of Americans across the political spectrum who support sending arms to Ukraine has dropped, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey released Thursday. The poll, conducted Tuesday and Wednesda…
Ukraine war through the lens of U.S. adults: GOP commitment slips, 41% say U.S. intervention excessive, Dems remain committed, 64% uncertain of a winner.
I'm just seeing the talking point 'Trump will appoint himself dictator for life' making the rounds. Given the 'I support the current thing' so many in America seem to go for I wonder if anyone actually takes this seriously.
So, I'm asking if any of the posters on this thread think that if Donald Trump is re-elected that there is a non-pretend chance that he would declare himself dictator for life.
I find the idea laughable. Even if he did try such a stunt, there's no way people (including those in the government) would go for it.
You are asking the wrong question in a failed attempt to minimize the danger Trump is to our form of government and our country. As Agip referred to above, the question should be will Trump assume greater power and control by breaking laws and moving toward assuming some dictatorial powers.
The best judge of that is Trump. He has quite clearly said that he would. He said he would break laws, and defy the constitution and become a dictator for just his first day in office. In other words if he thinks he needs be a dictator then he would do that when he feels he needs to.
If that doesn't bother you, particularly in context of other things Trump has said and actually done, then I am forced to ask does the constitution and our form of government important at all too you?
The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn are not antisemites. They have condemned antisemitism repeatedly. MIT president is even Jewish
The obvious takeaways from that video:
1) The presidents largely come across as sniveling CYA politicians. Pretty gross. Big surprise.
2) The MASSIVE Trumper self-righteously questioning them is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE hypocrite.
Reverse positions: "Elise, you fu***** DB, Yes or No question: Has Donald Trump disqualified himself from being the most powerful person in the world as a result of the following actions and statements [Read a few dozen] ?"
She would fail her test far, far worse than the university presidents did theirs.
Imagine being so mentally diseased that your takeaway from Ivy league presidents refusing to condemn calls for genocide is "BUT DONALD TRUMP!"
You are asking the wrong question in a failed attempt to minimize the danger Trump is to our form of government and our country. As Agip referred to above, the question should be will Trump assume greater power and control by breaking laws and moving toward assuming some dictatorial powers.
The best judge of that is Trump. He has quite clearly said that he would. He said he would break laws, and defy the constitution and become a dictator for just his first day in office. In other words if he thinks he needs be a dictator then he would do that when he feels he needs to.
If that doesn't bother you, particularly in context of other things Trump has said and actually done, then I am forced to ask does the constitution and our form of government important at all too you?
Exactly! You can set aside the debate of whether Trump could do the authoritarian sh!t he is promising to do.
The elephant in the room: Why the hell are you voting for someone that promises to do this?
I think what those who (above) posted about a Constitutional crisis, power grab, etc. are incorrect. Think about what would be required for this to happen.
1) Trump would have to actually use presidential power illegally (not just in a way that isn't liked).
2) The other branches of government would have to not act to remove him from power. This means that those representatives would have to not only have to agree with Trump but would have to be willing to throw away 247 years of a democratic republic because they want an elderly man to become dictator for life.
3) The military would have to go along for the ride.
If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff refuses to take the order of the President because he believes the order is unconstitutional, that is definitely a Constitutional crisis.
making deals is how things get done in congress, but not in wartime, with allies dying every day and funds running out to keep them in the fight.
Americans want to aid Ukraine. An American priority, not a party thing. Except for m'aga. those people want russia to win and keep going, just to teach those euro libs a lesson.
Look up just about any recent poll and you'll see most Americans disagree.
"Only 41 percent of respondents said they agreed that the United States should provide weapons to Ukraine, down from 65 percent of respondents who said the same in a June 2023 survey." [1]
37% believe "believe the U.S. should continue to provide aid as long as Ukraine requests it." [2]
Ukraine war through the lens of U.S. adults: GOP commitment slips, 41% say U.S. intervention excessive, Dems remain committed, 64% uncertain of a winner.
I was honestly asking to see what kind of responses I would get. It seems that the talking points are already implanted.
I know that the term 'talking point' has some inflammatory connotations, but I use it because that's what is given to the media (by both political parties) to try to use publicity to drive a narrative. So I ask that you keep that in mind and consider what I write below as a respectful response.
I think what those who (above) posted about a Constitutional crisis, power grab, etc. are incorrect. Think about what would be required for this to happen.
1) Trump would have to actually use presidential power illegally (not just in a way that isn't liked).
2) The other branches of government would have to not act to remove him from power. This means that those representatives would have to not only have to agree with Trump but would have to be willing to throw away 247 years of a democratic republic because they want an elderly man to become dictator for life.
3) The military would have to go along for the ride.
4) Trump supporters (who are also ordinary Americans who value a democratic republic) would have to value outcome over process so much that they would support such a thing. The rest of America would have to significantly support or go along with this as well.
I think it's worth considering that these things are not likely to happen and that this is a narrative being put forth to try to influence the election.
If it matters, for context I am someone who finds Trump as a person imperfect and off-putting. I wouldn't want to hang out with him. That doesn't mean I would vote for any of the recent Democratic presidential nominees, let alone the DNC puppet we have in office right now. I think it's potentially dangerous to have Biden in office with the current instability in the world as well.
There would certainly be people who would try to stop it, but consider these answers to your numbered items above.
1) He has already broken the law and was impeached twice for it. Once for extorting an ally to investigate his political rival and once for inciting an insurrection. That does not include trying to get the AG to investigate Biden and family. It does not include calling state officials and asking them to change the vote counts. It does not include appointing fake electors. He has been indicted 4 times, 91 counts for his illegal actions. He WILL do illegal things as he has already done.
2) Republicans have protected Trump at every opportunity for all of the above. They will continue to do so. If they are the majority, there is no check on his power. If his actions of overstepping power limits were a concern for them, they have not shown it.
3) The military is largely a conservative leaning entity. It is not out of the question that many in the military would obey their commander in chief and not consider the constitutionality of their actions.
4) Trump supporters, with his encouragement, attacked the Capital on Jan 6, broke down barriers, broke into the building, injured 150 police officers, stole from Congress members, tried to stop the ratification of the election and called for the hanging of the VP for upholding the law. This was only a few thousand people. They might have killed Congress members if it had been a few thousand more. It does not take a majority of Americans, just a violent few.
Look up just about any recent poll and you'll see most Americans disagree.
"Only 41 percent of respondents said they agreed that the United States should provide weapons to Ukraine, down from 65 percent of respondents who said the same in a June 2023 survey." [1]
37% believe "believe the U.S. should continue to provide aid as long as Ukraine requests it." [2]
Nearly 20 months after Russia invaded Ukraine, bipartisan support for U.S. military assistance has frayed, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Most Americans still support sending additional arms and supplies to the Ukrainians, but more division exists over whether the investment has been worthwhile.
much of her m'aga crew is white supremacists, equally hating of Jews as the Harvard activists. Total hypocrisy from stefanik. She is the opposite of an honest broker.
Do you think there’s any reason to criticize Israel at all? Do you think all of those Harvard student protesters just hate Jews?
it's very complicated and mostly the harvard students have been trained to protest white people, and they are reading Israelis as 'white' here. Campus libs have long held 'white' people to a very very high standard and been vicious when they see a deficit. Add in a whiff of colonialism like the Israel situation and campus libs basically think murder is acceptable in that circumstance.
So it's more anti-white than anti-jewish among the standard campus libs. Among the Muslim population protesting on campus...I have less insight.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
