Miscellaneous Trump (6 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?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Sure there is another option. You can chose not to eat. You can chose whichever you choose and I guess if you keep doing that and it is acceptable to you, then the menu will never change. You will always get to choose between a bland sandwich or the foul stew. That choice probably isn’t going to motivate people to get out and vote when they dont care for either.

wrong

you can't choose not to eat for 4 years

To @Taurus point your only options are:

A. Vote eat the bologna sandwich

B. Vote to eat the roadkill sandwich

C. Not vote but have to eat whichever sandwich gets the most votes (or the most sandwich college votes)

D. Go to another restaurant (move to another country)*

That's it, that's the list

You're "C" but you constantly pretend that there is another option. There is not

*and don't forget Taurus' example. You're in prison not a restaurant. So in keeping with that, if you're rich enough, have the right connections, maybe you can swing a transfer to another prison, one that serves the kind of sandwiches you like. But for 99% of the inmates that isn't an option, so again their only options are A, B or C

 

[Optimus Prime]

NO, you cannot choose to starve. There WILL BE a President whether you like it or not, that's the point. It will be, no matter what, Option A or Option B. Sandwich or shirte-stew. No abstention unless you actually become a citizen of another country and even then, that's just for you. The rest of us who stay will, without recourse, we will have sammich or stew. Your lack of a vote for the sandwich just got us all, including you, closer to stew.
Too many people did that and here we are, in the land of the pedo-stew.

you posted this as I was writing my response

 

[Optimus Prime]

Sure there is another option. You can chose not to eat. You can chose whichever you choose and I guess if you keep doing that and it is acceptable to you, then the menu will never change. You will always get to choose between a bland sandwich or the foul stew. That choice probably isn’t going to motivate people to get out and vote when they dont care for either.

so a hunger strike?

Maybe the losing side has to look deep within at how to revamp their menu to come up with better offerings

That process takes 4 years and in the meantime everyone is eating the roadkill

 

[Optimus Prime]

Exhausted, sweaty athletes, beer, champagne, and a congratulatory call from the president of the United States. All standard fare during the celebration of a gold-medal winning game at the Olympics. But some of the commotion around the U.S. men's hockey team - who won their first Olympic gold medal since the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" - has taken a political turn, with beleaguered FBI Director Kash Patel celebrating in the locker room before patching in President Donald Trump, who complained to the players that he would also "have to bring" the gold-medal winning U.S. women's team to festivities at the White House or "be impeached."

In videos of the celebration Patel - whose office spent days insisting he was in Milan on official business and not to party at the Olympics - chugged beers, banged on tables, and tried on players' gold medals. At one point, he held out his phone so the president could deliver a message to the team. Trump congratulated them, and offered to coordinate military aircraft to transport the team from Miami (where they will be flying to in order to avoid winter storms battering the northeast) to Washington, D.C., for his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

"We'll do the White House," Trump told players. "We'll just have some fun, we have medals for you guys. And we have to - I must tell you - we're going to have to bring the women's team, you do know that," the president said, chuckling. The players laughed. "I do believe I probably would be impeached [if I didn't]," Trump continued.

Neither the White House or USA Hockey - which manages both the men's and women's teams - immediately responded to requests for comment from Rolling Stone.

The United States won 12 gold medals at the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics, half of which were won by female athletes, and another two by mixed-gender teams. The final match of the women's hockey event between the United States and Canada broke the record for the most-watched women's hockey game ever. So far, the White House has not extended an invitation to the U.S. women's hockey team, and there is no record of the president giving them a congratulatory locker room phone call.

Instead, the president - who claims he wants to "protect" and uphold women's sports by demonizing trangender athletes - painted the women's team as unwanted hangers-on to the men's celebration. It isn't surprising from a president who has a long history of reflexive misogyny and alleged abuse against women................

Trump mocks women's hockey team while congratulating men on gold​

Trump Mocks Women's Hockey Team While Congratulating Men on Gold

President Donald Trump mocked the U.S. Women's hockey team during a congratulatory call to the men's team after winning the Olympic gold medal.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[MT15]

Misogynistic to his core. And from what I am reading about the men’s hockey team, they are all just like him. Can’t even feel good about a win for the US men’s hockey team because they are a bunch of MAGA idiots.

 

[TampaJoe]

NO, you cannot choose to starve. There WILL BE a President whether you like it or not, that's the point. It will be, no matter what, Option A or Option B. Sandwich or shirte-stew. No abstention unless you actually become a citizen of another country and even then, that's just for you. The rest of us who stay will, without recourse, we will have sammich or stew. Your lack of a vote for the sandwich just got us all, including you, closer to stew.
Too many people did that and here we are, in the land of the pedo-stew.

Those are your rules for you. If that works for you then so be it. But there is absolutely nothing in law that forces anyone to chose between two candidates or any candidate for that matter. So yeah, I and apparently several million other eligible voters were not impressed by either POTUS candidate to vote for either of them. I can walk into a restaurant with 250 million of my friends and be given a choice of prison sandwich or short stew and there is nothing that says I have to order one or the other. I can choose not to order either. That is a valid legal choice whether you like or agree with it or not.

If either party seeks to increase their market share then they need to think about putting forward their best candidate and their best policy solutions instead of offering up something they consider “perfectly acceptable”. Otherwise many of us who are tired of the same shirty menu will quit playing along.

It shouldn’t be hard for you to understand. The largest political party is “independent”.

 

[TampaJoe]

so a hunger strike?

Maybe the losing side has to look deep within at how to revamp their menu to come up with better offerings

That process takes 4 years and in the meantime everyone is eating the roadkill

That is the process. Maybe one or the other, perhaps both, of the political parties will learn the lesson. They haven’t yet.

 

[TampaJoe]

wrong

you can't choose not to eat for 4 years

To @Taurus point your only options are:

A. Vote eat the bologna sandwich

B. Vote to eat the roadkill sandwich

C. Not vote but have to eat whichever sandwich gets the most votes (or the most sandwich college votes)

D. Go to another restaurant (move to another country)*

That's it, that's the list

You're "C" but you constantly pretend that there is another option. There is not

*and don't forget Taurus' example. You're in prison not a restaurant. So in keeping with that, if you're rich enough, have the right connections, maybe you can swing a transfer to another prison, one that serves the kind of sandwiches you like. But for 99% of the inmates that isn't an option, so again their only options are A, B or C

I haven’t voted for POTUS in the last three elections. And I’m still here. I do vote in the down ballot races. I havent starved yet.

This isn’t prison. People can and do choose not to vote. So if you want to change the dynamic then the candidates and parties need to figure out how to appeal to all those people. If you have a better idea then by all means offer it up. Can’t hold a gun other head and there is no law that forces anyone to vote or to vote like you think they should vote. It is a personal decision and you don’t get to dictate the terms.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Those are your rules for you. If that works for you then so be it. But there is absolutely nothing in law that forces anyone to chose between two candidates or any candidate for that matter. So yeah, I and apparently several million other eligible voters were not impressed by either POTUS candidate to vote for either of them. I can walk into a restaurant with 250 million of my friends and be given a choice of prison sandwich or short stew and there is nothing that says I have to order one or the other. I can choose not to order either. That is a valid legal choice whether you like or agree with it or not.

If either party seeks to increase their market share then they need to think about putting forward their best candidate and their best policy solutions instead of offering up something they consider “perfectly acceptable”. Otherwise many of us who are tired of the same shirty menu will quit playing along.

It shouldn’t be hard for you to understand. The largest political party is “independent”.

you still are intentionally misunderstanding

No one is forced to vote for any candidate in any election - 100% true

Everyone is "forced" (if that's the right word) to live under whatever the administration that wins decides to do - 100% true

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and their healthcare premiums still went way up - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and had a government job that got DOGE'd - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and their arts grant was cancelled - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and their school's job fair was cancelled because it's considered DEI - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and are trans and got kicked out of the military - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris but their small business is getting destroyed by tariffs - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris but is now pregnant with a rape baby - they're shirt out of luck

If someone didn't vote for either Trump or Harris and got picked up by ICE - they are shirt out of luck

The fact that they didn't vote for either candidate doesn't matter and it doesn't matter because as long as they live in America that means they live in Donald Trump's America

That is also 100% true and for whatever reason you refuse to concede that point

You only and always come back with you don't have to vote for a candidate, which is an argument no one is making