Miscellaneous Trump (4 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[coldseat]

As I said, voting is an affirmation of support. None of the above is a perfectly acceptable choice.

Actually, voting is proof of your fulfillment of your responsibility and participation in a democracy. Not voting is a rejection of democracy.

Voting 3rd party is a legitimate choice, but similar to throwing away your vote when your know there are only two viable choices.

Democracy doesn't guarantee you'll like who the choices are, but it still requires you to vote or else the whole system breaks down over time.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

It’s not. Simply a fact. No matter how much you or anyone else wishes it was.

Fact is millions of people didn’t vote in this election that did vote in the previous election. Someone here stated that the Dems should look into that. So if enough people don’t buy into accepting whatever either party decides to offer up, one or the both of them might give some thought into trying step up their game.

We are an evenly divided nation. Roughly 1/3 on each side and 1/3 in the middle. Maybe if enough folks continue to declare as independents, somebody might start to pay attention. Who knows. One can only hope.

This is hopeful thinking by you. That's not allowed. I was often hopeful on mad abour politics and therefore I was often ridiculed. On here you have to agree with California values or they rip you apart. Do whatever you want but I am just letting you know how it is.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Binary means I only have two choices. It means the voters have only two choices. In fact there were more than three options as I see it. Trump, Harris, 3rd Party or none of the above. To you there may only be two viable choices. To me, not voting for either was a viable choice. As I said, voting is an affirmation of support. None of the above is a perfectly acceptable choice.

Maybe therein lies the problem. The parties believe that people have to choose one or the other. They don’t. As we just witnessed. They don’t. They don’t have to vote. They don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils. They have other options. If you candidate doesn’t represent them or their values, they don’t have to vote. Maybe to them the only viable option is to say “none of the above”?

You may not have to vote for one or the other but one or the other is going to win

All voting third party or not voting is going to do (at best) is help or hurt one or the other

There is absolutely no scenario where one or the other doesn’t win

That is what people mean when they say it’s a binary choice

Either one or the other wins no matter what you or anyone else does

Pretending anything else is a fantasy

 

[TampaJoe]

Actually, voting is proof of your fulfillment of your responsibility and participation in a democracy. Not voting is a rejection of democracy.

Voting 3rd party is a legitimate choice, but similar to throwing away your view when your know there are only two viable choices.

Democracy doesn't guarantee you'll like who the choices are, but it still requires you to vote or else the whole system breaks down over time.

Democracy doesn’t require you to vote. Maybe an autocracy but not a democracy. Democracy says I am allowed to make whatever choice I want. What you advocate is that I must choose between two choices I might consider unacceptable.

In our democracy, no one is required to vote for one of the two party candidates. No one is required to vote at all. I get it screws up the whole “demonize” the other party strategy so the only “viable” alternative is whatever we choose to give them.

Democracy means we all are free to do as we please. We can spend our vote as we see fit even if it means not voting at all. What are you going to do if folks decide not to play along? Several million did just that in Nov.

You are right. Democracy doesn’t guarantee you will like what the voters choose. Governed by the consent of the governed doesn’t require the voters to consent to whatever choices the establishment parties see fit to offer. Voting is an affirmation of support. You don’t get it by default.

 

[TampaJoe]

You may not have to vote for one or the other but one or the other is going to win

All voting third party or not voting is going to do is help or hurt one or the other

There is absolutely no scenario where one or the other doesn’t win

That is what people mean when they say it’s a binary choice

Either one or the other wins no matter what you or anyone else does

Pretending anything else is a fantasy

I get what you mean. Always have. What you don’t get is that you don’t make the rules. You don’t get to determine who or what someone supports. They may not see the world as you. Maybe they value sticking to their personal values and beliefs and not sacrificing that and just going along for the win.

What you don’t get or understand is that for many people, it isn’t binary. Never has been. The percentage of people who refuse to call themselves Republican or Democrats is now greater than either party. People are sick of the BS and hyperpartisanship.

So as long as the political parties continue to cater to their base and ignore the middle, we will stay a highly divided nation and be subject to these swing elections every 4 to 8 years. Every Presidential election will be the “most important election in our history” and every two years we will be “fighting to take our nation back”.

Same song. Same dance.

 

[fooferdoggie]

hero of the common man!

well if your Trump you need a whole swimming pool of water to remove the makeup and smell.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well this isn’t a binary choice. Not in my view. Choosing someone who in your view isn’t qualified or fit for the position, isn’t logical. Voting is an affirmation of support. Choosing someone you do not support or cannot support isn’t logical.

But you vote by whatever logic makes sense to you and I will do the same. If that means not voting in an election then I won’t vote. If I go into a restaurant and I don’t like or want the food on the menu. I don’t order something I don’t want. That isn’t logical. If you want to do so for whatever reason, you go ahead.

You can't even articulate why you find Kamala Harris to be unfit or unqualified, so I'm not sure your logical thinking skills are adequate.

 

[SystemShock]

Well this isn’t a binary choice.

It practically is.

Not in my view. Choosing someone who in your view isn’t qualified or fit for the position, isn’t logical. Voting is an affirmation of support. Choosing someone you do not support or cannot support isn’t logical.

Again, if the choice is status quo vs making things worse, the logical, reasonable choice is status quo. Unless, of course, you want to make things worse.

Voting isn't necessarily an affirmation of support. But, if you want to put it that way, you can support the status quo or support things getting worse.

A great example, a lot of liberals did not vote for Harris because they didn't like the situation in Gaza, most notably so called "Arab Americans" in Michigan (many actually voted for Trump). If they thought the situation in Gaza was bad under the Dems, they are going to get a huge shock when the see what happens in Gaza under the party of the Evangelicals.

 

[coldseat]

Democracy doesn’t require you to vote. Maybe an autocracy but not a democracy. Democracy says I am allowed to make whatever choice I want. What you advocate is that I must choose between two choices I might consider unacceptable.

In our democracy, no one is required to vote for one of the two party candidates. No one is required to vote at all. I get it screws up the whole “demonize” the other party strategy so the only “viable” alternative is whatever we choose to give them.

Democracy means we all are free to do as we please. We can spend our vote as we see fit even if it means not voting at all. What are you going to do if folks decide not to play along? Several million did just that in Nov.

You are right. Democracy doesn’t guarantee you will like what the voters choose. Governed by the consent of the governed doesn’t require the voters to consent to whatever choices the establishment parties see fit to offer. Voting is an affirmation of support. You don’t get it by default.

"Demands" may have been a better word for me to use than "requires", but you really missed the point of my post. I'm speaking on a philosophical level of what a democracy demands of its citizens in order to work. You interpreted it as some type of legal requirement.

Sure, people can choose not to vote and as you stated millions do. But it's an abdication of their responsibility in a democracy and it makes our government weaker/worse.

 

[Lapaz]

Binary means I only have two choices. It means the voters have only two choices. In fact there were more than three options as I see it. Trump, Harris, 3rd Party or none of the above. To you there may only be two viable choices. To me, not voting for either was a viable choice. As I said, voting is an affirmation of support. None of the above is a perfectly acceptable choice.

Maybe therein lies the problem. The parties believe that people have to choose one or the other. They don’t. As we just witnessed. They don’t. They don’t have to vote. They don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils. They have other options. If you candidate doesn’t represent them or their values, they don’t have to vote. Maybe to them the only viable option is to say “none of the above”?

Binary means only 2 choices. In our election system, viability means they have a realistic chance to win. In our current system, there are only 2 viable choices. If you choose anyone other than the Republican or the Democrat, your vote is essentially comparable to not voting. The viable options are binary. All other options are only to make a point, but essentially a wasted vote. I would like ranked choice, then we could all make a point, while still not wasting our vote.

 

[MT15]

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

I get what you mean. Always have. What you don’t get is that you don’t make the rules. You don’t get to determine who or what someone supports. They may not see the world as you. Maybe they value sticking to their personal values and beliefs and not sacrificing that and just going along for the win.

What you don’t get or understand is that for many people, it isn’t binary. Never has been. The percentage of people who refuse to call themselves Republican or Democrats is now greater than either party. People are sick of the BS and hyperpartisanship.

So as long as the political parties continue to cater to their base and ignore the middle, we will stay a highly divided nation and be subject to these swing elections every 4 to 8 years. Every Presidential election will be the “most important election in our history” and every two years we will be “fighting to take our nation back”.

Same song. Same dance.

Lol....where were you a year ago when I needed you?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Portrait of Trump critic General Mark Milley removed from Pentagon

Trump appointed Milley to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2018 but the two’s relationship soured by the end of his first term

www.independent.co.uk

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Lol....where were you a year ago when I needed you?

You're a grown man and you need an emotional support poster?

 

[t_rav_82]

This is hopeful thinking by you. That's not allowed. I was often hopeful on mad abour politics and therefore I wad often ridiculed. On here you have to agree with California values or they rip you apart. Do whatever you want but I am just letting you know how it is.

Your ideas are ridiculed because they are crappy ones and you don’t seem to change them as you learn. But no one here has ridiculed you for being hopeful. It’s been for things like, being a single issue pro life voter while simultaneously being upset that a few death row inmates had their sentences commuted, and not being able to articulate why you’re against that. Your inability to change your opinion and formulate new ideas when presented with facts and better ideas is the main reason for the ridicule and it doesn’t have anything to do with how much someone’s values align with one state or another.

 

[RobF]

Well this isn’t a binary choice. Not in my view. Choosing someone who in your view isn’t qualified or fit for the position, isn’t logical. Voting is an affirmation of support. Choosing someone you do not support or cannot support isn’t logical.

But you vote by whatever logic makes sense to you and I will do the same. If that means not voting in an election then I won’t vote. If I go into a restaurant and I don’t like or want the food on the menu. I don’t order something I don’t want. That isn’t logical. If you want to do so for whatever reason, you go ahead.

See, in the context we're talking about, in the restaurant analogy you don't get to have nothing. Everyone gets the same one item from the menu. Whether you wanted it or not. Abstaining from having a say doesn't change that; it doesn't put better items on the menu, it doesn't let you opt out from eating what ends up being served, it just means you didn't have a say.

And your argument is, essentially, that if the two items on the menu are, let's be polite, a probably poisonous rotten meat sandwich and a stale piece of bread, the best option is not to vote for the stale piece of bread, but to opt out, because... something will magically happen to provide a better option? You won't have to eat it?

Doesn't work like that. Which is why you're now enjoying a sickening sandwich along with everyone else over there.

 

[Dragon]

hero of the common man!

So the rich should be able to shower - because they are rich.. His logic is mindblowing.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Your ideas are ridiculed because they are crappy ones and you don’t seem to change them as you learn. But no one here has ridiculed you for being hopeful. It’s been for things like, being a single issue pro life voter while simultaneously being upset that a few death row inmates had their sentences commuted, and not being able to articulate why you’re against that. Your inability to change your opinion and formulate new ideas when presented with facts and better ideas is the main reason for the ridicule and it doesn’t have anything to do with how much someone’s values align with one state or another.

God is FOR the protection of the unborn in the womb.
God also allowed for the death penalty for adults
See Leviticus 24:17
and
Exodus 21: 12 -16
*
My being in favor of protecting the baby in the womb and wanting the death row inmate to face the justice the jury of his peers decided on....these are not contradictions and do not make me a hypocrite.
Both align with scripture.


There were times that I HOPED America would reject both Trump and Biden and there were times I HOPED a third party would actually become viable.
Like @TampaJoe Joe (a new to ME poster) I wanted an America where voters did not have to feel obligated to only choose between the D or the R candidates. That was my hope and I was ridiculed for that hope.