Miscellaneous Trump (8 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?

 

[fooferdoggie]

Two days ago sismic sensors detected a huge shaking all over the US. it was soon realized it was a giant sucking sound. it was proven when all republicans now sport Orange lips and a brown nose.

 

[MT15]

When someone tries to convince others that the opposite of reality is what’s actually happening - like that democrats are demonizing republicans - that’s called gaslighting. It’s obnoxious.

 

[Optimus Prime]

For what it’s worth
==============
Meta says that people have been automatically left following Donald Trump’s account – and admitted that some of them are unable to stop.

It suggested that technical problems meant that some people were currently unable to stop following Mr Trump’s official presidential account.

But it made clear that users had not been automatically made to follow those accounts in the first place, as has been suggested.

Since Donald Trump became president, he also gained control of the official @Potus and @VP accounts on Instagram and Facebook. That led to complaints from users that they were following Mr Trump or his vice president JD Vance, despite not having asked to, since they were following those accounts when they were fronted by other politicians.

However, some – including singer Gracie Abrams – said that they had not only been forced to follow the account but were unable to stop doing so.

She said that she had been required to unfollow the account three different times, and had been forced to block the account to ensure that she was not associated with it anymore.

Now, Meta has admitted that some people are having trouble unfollowing those accounts, but suggested that it would be fixed……

Meta admits some people can’t unfollow Donald Trump on Instagram

Users including Gracie Abrams have said they never asked to follow presidential account – and are unable to stop

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

Elon Musk furious after Wikipedia page calls his gesture a ‘Nazi salute’

‘Defund Wikipedia until [the] balance is restored!’ Musk spouted on his social media platform X

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Donald Trump has made a habit of saluting during the national anthem despite the flag code indicating that he should simply place his hand over his heart.

The regulation, 36 U.S. Code § 301, states that during a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, “individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note.”

“Members of the Armed Forces and veteranswho are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform,” the code continues. “All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.”……

It’s unclear why Trump chooses to salute during the national anthem as he has never served in the armed forces, famously facing allegations that he cited bone spurs to get out of the draft during the Vietnam War.…….

Why does Trump keep saluting during the national anthem?

U.S. Code states that those who are not members of the armed forces should put their hands over their hearts during the national anthem

www.independent.co.uk

 

[TampaJoe]

That's almost exclusively what Trump does and he just won the presidential election? It doesn't even feel like I share the same world with other people now-a-days. How can you seriously make that statement?

Do you take whatever Trump says seriously? I don’t. He demonizes pretty much everyone who doesn’t agree with him. Are you surprised?

It cuts both ways. The demonization coming the other way is no more persuasive. There has to be something more to political campaigns than this.

 

[TampaJoe]

Did you just come on here to be a troll or Are you honestly this naïve?

Do you honestly believe that Evangelicals are motivated by political power? Are you that naive?

 

[TampaJoe]

Only one will win out of two out of how many others are running

Two possible winners

That’s it. That’s the binary choice

That’s also it for me engaging in this debate

Either you can’t possibly be this obtuse, or you can be

There’s another binary choice for you

Or maybe it’s you who are obtuse? But don’t let me further confuse you.

 

[coldseat]

Do you take whatever Trump says seriously? I don’t. He demonizes pretty much everyone who doesn’t agree with him. Are you surprised?

It cuts both ways. The demonization coming the other way is no more persuasive. There has to be something more to political campaigns than this.

Yes, he typically means what he says in the moment he says it. He may change what he says an hour later, but he means that too. It just changed because of how it benefits him. Everything he said during the campaign, he's now trying to do. Whether it's good for America or not, whether it's legal or not, it doesn't really matter. So yes, I think we should all take him seriously, even if he's a moron and a seriously flawed human being. And he definitely means it when he denigrates others, that's when he's most animated.

That's all besides the point though, because you're shifting the goal post. You said that the type of demonization of groups, that Trump engages in regularly, is dead as a type of political capitol. That's clearly not the case as that is what has drawn many supporters to Trump with his MAGA movement. And it's not just Trump, it's a whole right wing echo system. Just go watch "Fox News" one evening and count how often they demonize and denigrate minorities and anybody/anything progressive.

 

[TampaJoe]

Yes, he typically means what he says in the moment he says it. He may change what he says an hour later, but he means that too. It just changed because of how it benefits him. Everything he said during the campaign, he's now trying to do. Whether it's good for America or not, whether it's legal or not, it doesn't really matter. So yes, I think we should all take him seriously, even if he's a moron and a seriously flawed human being. And he definitely means it when he denigrates others, that's when he's most animated.

That's all besides the point though, because you're shifting the goal post. You said that the type of demonization of groups, that Trump engages in regularly, is dead as a type of political capitol. That's clearly not the case as that is what has drawn many supporters to Trump with his MAGA movement. And it's not just Trump, it's a whole right wing echo system. Just go watch "Fox News" one evening and count how often they demonize and denigrate minorities and anybody/anything progressive.

I’m sure that was all going one way. The other side did nothing of the sort.

But tell me since this all started with one poster demonizing evangelicals. Where does that get you?

I really don’t believe much of what one side says about the other. After a while, it’s just noise.

 

[J-DONK]

When someone tries to convince others that the opposite of reality is what’s actually happening - like that democrats are demonizing republicans - that’s called gaslighting. It’s obnoxious.

I mean we do think they are racist, and xenophobic. It's an earned reputation.

 

[J-DONK]

Do you honestly believe that Evangelicals are motivated by political power? Are you that naive?

You know what this tells me.

You know nothing about the Southern Strategy.

You know nothing about current state of the Republican party. The unholy marriage of Gilded Age bilionaires, and the religous right.

Here ya go dude, from a former GOP presidential candidate.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

The quote also neatly blows up your talking point about "If only Democrats would compromise more".

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

How old are you? This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

All of us have covered this subject in great detail. I have explained myself numerous times and all of you have shared your disagreement with me numerous times. It is neither funny or sad that I don't wish to rehash this as if it was something new. There was a new-to-me-poster that I wanted to interact with but that individual opted not to respond. Naturally that's his right and btw I am not making up my own rules. Yet I govern how to use my time and arguing with liberals over the same old topic is not a good use of my time.

 

[TampaJoe]

I’m sure that was all going one way. The other side did nothing of the sort.

But tell me since this all started with one poster demonizing evangelicals. Where does that get you?

I really don’t believe much of what one side says about the other. After a while, it’s just noise.

You know what this tells me.

You know nothing about the Southern Strategy.

You know nothing about current state of the Republican party. The unholy marriage of Gilded Age bilionaires, and the religous right.

Here ya go dude, from a former GOP presidential candidate.



The quote also neatly blows up your talking point about "If only Democrats would compromise more".

Ahhh. Barry Goldwater. Yeah. That’s current stuff. How long ago did he run for President? How long has he been dead? Any reason you didn’t mention his name or year he made the quote.

You know you are grasping at straws when you have to go back 50 years to grab a quote and pretend it’s something current.

Speaking of noise.

 

[TampaJoe]

All of us have covered this subject in great detail. I have explained myself numerous times and all of you have shared your disagreement with me numerous times. It is neither funny or sad that I don't wish to rehash this as if it was something new. There was a new-to-me-poster that I wanted to interact with but that individual opted not to respond. That's his right and I am not making up my own rules. Yet I govern how to use my time and arguing with liberals over the same old topic is not a good use of my time.

My apologies Steve.

As for abortion, I have stated my position previously.

I am a conservative but this to me is a legal question first.

If this were any other health related issue, it would be the sole decision of the individual. I don’t think it is a privacy issue. The government regulates medicine and medical procedures. So the question to me is one that goes to equal protection under the law. In health matters that solely affect the individual, it is the individuals choice. Matters not as to whether that individual is male or female.

Abortion brings in a complicating factor. The rights of unborn human beings. It is way beyond my pay grade or expertise to say when human life begins and when that human life obtains due process rights and whether those rights are superior to the rights of the mother.

Do I personally think “individual” human life begins at conception? No. I don’t believe the science would back that up. Do I think it begins after birth? Again No. I think it begins somewhere in between.

So the discussion to me is when does individual human life begins? What characteristics define that state of being? We make that determination when it comes to deciding matters at death. We should have a similar discussion when it comes to birth.

For medical decisions prior to when life begins, those are and should be the mothers. Beyond that date and prior to birth, that has yet to be decided. I think most countries limit abortions and few allow unrestricted abortion. So the US isn’t the only place struggling with this matter.

Abortion is treating a symptom of a larger problem. The prochoice and prolife people should work together when possible to limit the number of unwanted pregnancy. Therein lies the problem.

My religious friends and relatives have different views. My wife’s views are similar to mine.

 

[J-DONK]

Ahhh. Barry Goldwater. Yeah. That’s current stuff. How long ago did he run for President? How long has he been dead? Any reason you didn’t mention his name or year he made the quote.

You know you are grasping at straws when you have to go back 50 years to grab a quote and pretend it’s something current.

Speaking of noise.

I just want to be clear:

1. You to Prime, it's naive to think Evangelicals are motivated by political power.
2. I quote a GOP candidate talking about that very thing.
3. Dimissive because it was long ago.

What came after that? The Moral Majority.

Do you seriously know nothing about modern political history?

 

[Dragon]

My apologies Steve.

As for abortion, I have stated my position previously.

I am a conservative but this to me is a legal question first.

If this were any other health related issue, it would be the sole decision of the individual. I don’t think it is a privacy issue. The government regulates medicine and medical procedures. So the question to me is one that goes to equal protection under the law. In health matters that solely affect the individual, it is the individuals choice. Matters not as to whether that individual is male or female.

Abortion brings in a complicating factor. The rights of unborn human beings. It is way beyond my pay grade or expertise to say when human life begins and when that human life obtains due process rights and whether those rights are superior to the rights of the mother.

Do I personally think “individual” human life begins at conception? No. I don’t believe the science would back that up. Do I think it begins after birth? Again No. I think it begins somewhere in between.

So the discussion to me is when does individual human life begins? What characteristics define that state of being? We make that determination when it comes to deciding matters at death. We should have a similar discussion when it comes to birth.

For medical decisions prior to when life begins, those are and should be the mothers. Beyond that date and prior to birth, that has yet to be decided. I think most countries limit abortions and few allow unrestricted abortion. So the US isn’t the only place struggling with this matter.

Abortion is treating a symptom of a larger problem. The prochoice and prolife people should work together when possible to limit the number of unwanted pregnancy. Therein lies the problem.

My religious friends and relatives have different views. My wife’s views are similar to mine.

One of the major issues with defining life as beginning at conception is that most common birth control methods work, at least in part, by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. If this definition were adopted, it would render many widely-used contraceptives illegal. This would shift the majority of reproductive responsibility onto the male partner.

In such a scenario, the male partner would have significant control over whether or when a woman becomes pregnant—a power dynamic that could be dangerously misused in abusive relationships. This concern becomes even more alarming when paired with proposals like Trump's plan to eliminate no-fault divorce, potentially trapping women in harmful or controlling relationships without the ability to leave easily.

 

[TampaJoe]

I just want to be clear:

1. You to Prime, it's naive to think Evangelicals are motivated by political power.
2. I quote a GOP candidate talking about that very thing.
3. Dimissive because it was long ago.

What came after that? The Moral Majority.

Do you seriously know nothing about modern political history?

Goldwater ran for President 60 years ago and he died of Alzheimer’s 25 years ago. I was 4 yrs old when he ran for POTUS. Now 1964 may be current events to you. Maybe you spend great deal of time in the past. Lots of things can, do and have changed in the meantime. If you had a current quote you would have mentioned the person and the date. You purposely omitted both. Why is that? You are grasping.

I’m not going to say that some religious folks don’t have political aspirations. But the vast majority aren’t motivated that way.