Trump 2024 — The second term

LeftyGunner · Apr 8, 2024

Ingomike said:
Waiting for the current administration to finish their ministry of truth?

Do you even read my posts? I wrote about the difficulty in finding unbiased information in the current media landscape, and trying to find common ground between ideologically opposed groups…not trying to control the narrative.

Ingomike said:
I hope you are not implying that we can go back to the vaunted era of Walter Cronkite was “news”? It was as bad as today, maybe worse, because few had the ability to check what was broadcast and no reasonable way to disseminate the information if they found it. The gates have been broken and we are better off for it.

Never mentioned anything of the sort…total projection from you.

Ingomike said:
They never were the neutral objective news they tried to make the viewers believe. Huntley-Brinkley, Cronkite and all the others were just as biased as they thought they could get by with. Want proof? Look no farther than the involvement in operation mockingbird.

Just like tombs, you continue to hammer away at points I never made.

You love to use the term, so here is an actual example of a straw man argument.

Ingomike said:
We don’t even have mainstream independent media today. Look at who owns them. They are all entangled in a globalist/government corporate ball of twine. What you describe is not possible because it does not exist.

What I describe? I described a problem, not a solution. Again, do you actually read my posts before you respond?

Ingomike said:
The fact is much of the real news breaks from places you find unsavory because the aforementioned cabal will not report it, even if they have it on a silver platter and that is not new. Many outlets had the Clinton story but it did not break until Drudge broke it thirty years ago.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point I made…

Ingomike said:
What actually needs to happen is Americans need to get used to not trusting any sources by default and making up their own minds instead of watching the View and Colbert for their instructions…

…and then you paraphrase the exact point of my post as a “rebuttal”.

Mike, you let your prejudices speak for you all too often. Use your damned head once in a while.

LeftyGunner · Apr 8, 2024

Ingomike said:
I find few actually know the history on Citizens United, but they love to rail on the case and decision. Are you saying you believe it constitutional the government can restrict the speech of corporations?

Oh, please enlighten us as to where the constitution protects the “speech” of corporations.

Corporations do not speak, and they do not have rights…the people who create them do.

jamil · Apr 8, 2024

Ingomike said:
I find few actually know the history on Citizens United, but they love to rail on the case and decision. Are you saying you believe it constitutional the government can restrict the speech of corporations?

I guess I stand corrected. "MAGA" does worship Citizens United. But at least you asked this time if the highlighted is what I'm saying rather than just declaring it.

Corporations aren't "persons". Instead, corporations are entities led by individuals. To head the potential "so you're saying..." off, I am not saying that corporate leaders should be held liable for everything the company does, the companies are held financially liable. We're not talking about liability, we're talking about elections and policy making.

The individual elites who run corporations have a magnified voice compared to ordinary citizens because of Citizens united. So I say **** no to that. Tesla, which is really Elon Musk, should not get an extra voice from the power of Tesla, to push candidates who will support making American taxpayers subsidize his cars. Pfizer should not get an extra voice to push candidates who will support pushing their drugs on Americans. The leaders who run Pfizer should just get their one *individual* voice. To amplify their voices by the power of their companies is NOT populism. It's NOT America-first.

But, I suppose you've just proven LG's point that membership in "MAGA" is more about Trump than it is about AF/populism. :rolleyes:

jamil · Apr 8, 2024

LeftyGunner said:
Read it again. I don’t make the claim that Trump is an authoritarian. I argue that populism and nationalism make good cover for authoritarianism.

Well, first, you have made the claim that your fear about Trump is authoritarian, without attaching it explicitly to nationalism/populism and without supporting the claim.

But, as far as hiding authoritarianism with nationalism/populism, Hitler, and Mussolini didn't hide authoritarianism with it, they used it to justify their authoritarianism. To get buy-in from the people. Trump has never advocated for authoritarianism, though some of his "law and order" rhetoric made it seem so. But in office he hasn't done anything any more "authoritarian" than other Presidents that you don't call authoritarian.

One shouldn't be worried about nationalism/populism as a slippery slope to authoritarianism. One should be worried about the authoritarianism being justified, regardless of how it's justified.

Look what authoritarian ******** Democrats have justified in the name of "safety". You don't seem to even notice that. Democrats lobbied hard for laws to force people to wear masks. And to be vaccinated. Because California is 90% ClownWorld™ Democrats, they successfully brought about all kinds of authoritarian rules against their citizens, who were happy to have it, BTW. In California, all you have to do is say "safety" and it causes all the liberal white women to have immediate orgasms.

jamil · Apr 8, 2024

LeftyGunner said:
Oh, please enlighten us as to where the constitution protects the “speech” of corporations.

Corporations do not speak, and they do not have rights…the people who create them do.

And I'd add that the people who create and run corporations have already exercised their right to use their political voice as individuals. They don't get another one just because they're elites.

Ingomike · Apr 8, 2024

LeftyGunner said:
Until we (all of us) can find…and agree on…reliable sources for relatively unbiased information…and are willing to do the hard work of critical thinking required to parse that information ourselves…I think the ideological divide between Americans will be both more difficult for ”us” to bridge, and easier for “them” to exploit against us.

This is what you said.

LeftyGunner said:
Do you even read my posts? I wrote about the difficulty in finding unbiased information in the current media landscape, and trying to find common ground between ideologically opposed groups…not trying to control the narrative.

I posted it above.

LeftyGunner said:
Never mentioned anything of the sort…total projection from you.

Just like tombs, you continue to hammer away at points I never made.

You love to use the term, so here is an actual example of a straw man argument.

What I describe? I described a problem, not a solution. Again, do you actually read my posts before you respond?

Again, this has nothing to do with the point I made…

…and then you paraphrase the exact point of my post as a “rebuttal”.

Mike, you let your prejudices speak for you all too often. Use your damned head once in a while.

You are suggesting something that does not exist, did not exist, and will not exist, a utopia of “reliable sources for relatively unbiased information” was how you worded it…

Ingomike · Apr 8, 2024

LeftyGunner said:
Oh, please enlighten us as to where the constitution protects the “speech” of corporations.

Corporations do not speak, and they do not have rights…the people who create them do.

First off do you know there are multiple definitions of corporations in the law? Corporations are a way people can assemble as recognized in the first amendment. Further through Constitutional processes corporations have been created and defined.

So should CBS news, a corporation, given liability protections, be allowed to report on Trump whatever they wish, but a group of people that banded together to report on Biden, created a corporation for the same individual protections, not be allowed to say what they want?

Ingomike · Apr 8, 2024

jamil said:
I guess I stand corrected. "MAGA" does worship Citizens United.

I am honored you see me as “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” just not sure what what that make you, much less LG…

Route 45 · Apr 8, 2024

Ingomike · Apr 8, 2024

jamil said:
Corporations aren't "persons". Instead, corporations are entities led by individuals. To head the potential "so you're saying..." off, I am not saying that corporate leaders should be held liable for everything the company does, the companies are held financially liable. We're not talking about liability, we're talking about elections and policy making.

The individual elites who run corporations have a magnified voice compared to ordinary citizens because of Citizens united. So I say **** no to that. Tesla, which is really Elon Musk, should not get an extra voice from the power of Tesla, to push candidates who will support making American taxpayers subsidize his cars. Pfizer should not get an extra voice to push candidates who will support pushing their drugs on Americans. The leaders who run Pfizer should just get their one *individual* voice. To amplify their voices by the power of their companies is NOT populism. It's NOT America-first.

A lot of words to say the people do not have assembly rights under the constitution with individual liability protections for what the assembly does.

The Musk and Soros will always have a bigger voice than you or I but by assembling together we can create a much bigger, and more competitive voice. I sure want individual protections for what the assembly does. That is what CU was all about…

Ingomike · Apr 8, 2024

jamil said:
But, I suppose you've just proven LG's point that membership in "MAGA" is more about Trump than it is about AF/populism.

This is just ridiculous, WTF does Trump have to do with CU? Nothing! It was decided in 2010 and ran through most of the ought’s. Let’s recap it, Wiki seems to have it fairly close. After McCain passed this began.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the organization (CU) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.

In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing Celsius 41.11 and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial filmmaker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films. During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, and to air the movie on DirecTV.[9]The FEC found this plan to be in violation of the BCRA, including Section 203 which defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and labor unions. The FEC prohibited the film from being broadcast, and Citizens United challenged this determination in court.

Perhaps if you and Obama are on the same side that you might rethink your position. So the government through McCain and the FEC Michael Moore was allowed to advertise the movie his corporation created but the CU corporation should not? The FEC gets to pick and choose who can speak? Which assembles of corporations can speak?

Do you realize that Okeefe Media Group could not exist if not for the CU decisions? Many of the AF/MAGA could not exist without it. It is far bigger that just what Soros and Musk can say via their corporations…

DadSmith · Apr 8, 2024

Trump draws his line in the sand on abortion as Republicans try to find their footing on pivotal subject - Washington Examiner

After months of dodging questions about his thoughts on abortion, former President Donald Trump said abortion laws should be left up to the states.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Tombs · Apr 8, 2024

LeftyGunner said:
This is conformation bias. You attribute everything good to Trump, and everything bad to democrats…regardless of the underlying truth.

Yes, I do, because that's what the world is currently like. 30 or 40 years ago things might have been different.

When democrats start actually caring about the people of this country and caring about REAL POLICY rather than theoretical emotional cash grab policies, things might change. Until then, only one party is actually standing with both feet on the ground and objectively looking at the situation.

You seem to not grasp that democrats can no longer even define what a woman is from a man. They can't figure out that flooding the unskilled labor market with millions of illegals is crippling the poor. That the average working class family can't afford a $60,000 EV.

Republicans can see and deal with these issues. Not a single democrat has the mental acuity to even acknowledge these problems much less come up with a solution.

Meanwhile democrats are doing every possible thing to keep RFK off the ballots, while preaching about how important democracy is. After a generation of screaming from the roof tops that we we need to encourage more young black men to vote, they're now reversing course because they have determined that will only help Trump. How anyone can even identify with the party now days demonstrates such a lack of self reflection that they're staring at the back of their own teeth.

The only "truth" here is that the democrat party has become the thing they have always claimed to be fighting against, and people are finally starting to notice it.

Ingomike · Apr 9, 2024

WINNING!

“The Opinion section of The New York Times is determined to make disaffected, Trump-loathing Republicans feel as if they still have relevance for the future of the party... …Almost without fail, the people the Times finds for this have deep ties to either George H.W. or George W. Bush.“

From the “Trump-loathing Republicans”:

“So two things are happening at once: The Republican Party is thoroughly MAGA and will be for the foreseeable future, and there is a small but influential number of Republicans who are deeply opposed to what their party has become but not prepared to shed their political identity and join the Democrats.”

Pathetic Bush Republicans Don't Grasp That They're Vestigial and Won't Be Making a Comeback

pjmedia.com

Ingomike · Apr 9, 2024

This should please HK, but doubt it does, the left is conserned Trump is running a competent campaign. :lmfao:

“This is a candidate who does create his own controversies, but, you know, that really is baked in now, I think, to his brand. “I think the mechanics, the underlying ground game, you know, the getting the state parties in line, getting the Republican national committee in line is really, I think, what is fueling this success he’s had on the campaign trail. Now, apparently, he’s got the money behind him, as well.”

“Jason Miller said if they win the election, the White House will be staffed only with loyalists. They’ve weeded out the backstabbers. “The really important figure in the whole drama is Johnny McEntee, who is Donald Trump’s former body man in the 2016 cycle. He rose up in Trump world and became the head of White House personnel in the Trump administration. His job is really to vet thousands and thousands of potential appointees who will go into the civil service and carry out the MAGA agenda.”

Vanity Fair Is Freaking Out About Trump’s ‘Terrifyingly Competent’ Campaign

redstate.com

DadSmith · Apr 9, 2024

Read the questions prospective Trump jurors have to answer before they’re selected in hush money trial - Washington Examiner

Possible jurors in former President Donald Trump's hush money case in New York will be asked an exhaustive list of questions to diminish bias.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

jamil · Apr 9, 2024

Ingomike said:
This should please HK, but doubt it does, the left is conserned Trump is running a competent campaign.

“This is a candidate who does create his own controversies, but, you know, that really is baked in now, I think, to his brand. “I think the mechanics, the underlying ground game, you know, the getting the state parties in line, getting the Republican national committee in line is really, I think, what is fueling this success he’s had on the campaign trail. Now, apparently, he’s got the money behind him, as well.”

“Jason Miller said if they win the election, the White House will be staffed only with loyalists. They’ve weeded out the backstabbers. “The really important figure in the whole drama is Johnny McEntee, who is Donald Trump’s former body man in the 2016 cycle. He rose up in Trump world and became the head of White House personnel in the Trump administration. His job is really to vet thousands and thousands of potential appointees who will go into the civil service and carry out the MAGA agenda.”

Vanity Fair Is Freaking Out About Trump’s ‘Terrifyingly Competent’ Campaign

redstate.com

As far as loyalists go, you can't run an administration with people trying to undermine everything you do. Hopefully that does not translate to sycophants and yes men. People need to be able to push back and advise. But also, ultimately, carry out the orders of the POTUS, as long as they're lawful.

That said, I think the primary role Pence took on is chief underminer.

Ingomike · Apr 9, 2024

“The case is so weak that The New York Times and The Washington Post both acknowledged that it’s a stretch. The New York Times reported: "The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws."

“Meanwhile, The Washington Post wrote that the prosecution left some “legal experts . . . scratching their heads” as “they describe it as an unusual case.”

“Indeed, it is unusual.“

The Absolutely Inane Case in Manhattan

townhall.com

BugI02 · Apr 9, 2024

Ingomike said:
WINNING!

“The Opinion section of The New York Times is determined to make disaffected, Trump-loathing Republicans feel as if they still have relevance for the future of the party... …Almost without fail, the people the Times finds for this have deep ties to either George H.W. or George W. Bush.“

From the “Trump-loathing Republicans”:

“So two things are happening at once: The Republican Party is thoroughly MAGA and will be for the foreseeable future, and there is a small but influential number of Republicans who are deeply opposed to what their party has become but not prepared to shed their political identity and join the Democrats.”

Pathetic Bush Republicans Don't Grasp That They're Vestigial and Won't Be Making a Comeback

pjmedia.com

Wehner and Rauch almost get it right, if they just replaced MAGA with progressivism they would have revealed a profound truth

Fourth and most essential, [ ] Republicans must set their sights on overthrowing [progressivism], not influencing it, partnering with it, bargaining with it, coexisting with it or waiting it out. They must name and explain what [progressivism] represents: lawlessness, moral anarchy, conspiratorial thinking and an assault on the Constitution.

Textbook leftist projection, made plain by a few simple changes

HKFaninCarmel · Apr 9, 2024

Ingomike said:
This should please HK, but doubt it does, the left is conserned Trump is running a competent campaign.

“This is a candidate who does create his own controversies, but, you know, that really is baked in now, I think, to his brand. “I think the mechanics, the underlying ground game, you know, the getting the state parties in line, getting the Republican national committee in line is really, I think, what is fueling this success he’s had on the campaign trail. Now, apparently, he’s got the money behind him, as well.”

“Jason Miller said if they win the election, the White House will be staffed only with loyalists. They’ve weeded out the backstabbers. “The really important figure in the whole drama is Johnny McEntee, who is Donald Trump’s former body man in the 2016 cycle. He rose up in Trump world and became the head of White House personnel in the Trump administration. His job is really to vet thousands and thousands of potential appointees who will go into the civil service and carry out the MAGA agenda.”

Vanity Fair Is Freaking Out About Trump’s ‘Terrifyingly Competent’ Campaign

redstate.com

I think Chris LaCivita is prob going to do a good job managing the campaign.

He has a challenging candidate to sell, a ton of self-inflicted wounds to overcome, and a difficult man to keep on message. I just want to see Trump stick to the message, not embarass himself, make it easy to stomach to vote for him, and get Trump to quit saying/doing stupid stuff. If he can make the election about Joe Biden, we’re looking good.

Trump 2024 — The second term

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

code ho

code ho

code ho

Top Hand

Top Hand

Top Hand

Grandmaster

Top Hand

Top Hand

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Top Hand

Top Hand

Grandmaster

code ho

Top Hand

Grandmaster

Expert

Log in

Site Supporter

Forum statistics