Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

But you've declined to offer any instance where you are willing to criticize Trump and implied that even Republicans who don't like Trump have "TDS" or implied left-wing views.

I'm not saying I disagree with Trump 100%. My issue with Trump isn't disagreeing with him on that much, although he has had some more moderate/left views (PP, take the guns first, lockdowns) that I don't like. My issue is generally his tactics, delivery, staff choices, toxic image, self>party approach, and how well he delivers.

That said, it appears to some that he is the standard bearer and the guiding light to all MAGA.
It doesn't matter who he is criticizing or what stance he takes; MAGA falls in line.
His people can say something clearly stupid, and MAGA falls in line.
It's a weird Trump addiction. I can't think of anyone, especially in politics, that walks on water to so many or above criticism.

Well. Notwithstanding not wanting to speak for Mike, I know he doesn't believe in lockdowns. I know he doesn't believe vaccines work. I know he doesn't believe in mask mandates. Trump claims to have saved lives. So it seems to me that there is much room there for Mike to be honest with himself and say he does not agree with Trump on that.

But, instead, he covers with federalism and Faucci being the one who recommended the policies. Trump should have directed Faucci not to recommend lockdowns. Not to recommend mask mandates. He didn't. I think that's a legitimate criticism of Trump that devout Trumpers cannot bring themselves to make.

 

[jamil]

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do…

That is defining republicans?

Sometimes Republicans say the same things as Democrats. Democrats are not always wrong. On issues of ClownWorld™ they're wrong. Sometimes democrats make a legitimate criticism. Probably because it's 2'oclock and the clock's broke. But it happens. And I think you've implied some things about me when I wasn't copying what I'm saying from Democrats. I said it because it is accurate. But you interpreted it as copying Democrats because it was critical of Trump. Which you don't like.

 

[jamil]

Mike, you got that list done for me on which parts of the 14th amendment have expired? No hurry. I've got a lot of work to do. Prolly won't be on again until this evening.

 

[Route 45]

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do.

Seems clear to me…

What if you DO the same thing leftists do?



Never seen Trump on a bicycle.

 

[KG1]

Nah. Can't be bro. How can you incite an insurrection without an insurrection?

Yeah typically "insurrectionist" leaders wouldn't offer up to 10,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol building before inciting "insurrection" only to be rejected by those in charge of insuring that the Capitol is protected. (Looking at you Nanny Pelosi.)

Trump was surely a shi**y "insurrection" leader if that's the case to offer up that which would have thwarted his own "insurrection" plans.

 

[foszoe]

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do…

That is defining republicans?

If the corollary is if you disagree with Trump you are a leftist....

 

[Ingomike]

I think a former president could lead a rebellion even while in office after he's been defeated in an election. So I think there should not be any immunity for that. But, they have to have it adjudicated or it's just not real. Or giving aid and comfort. When still in office, obviously that's subject to an impeachment process to determine.

What you “think” is not the answer, but then you stumble across the nugget, Presidents are subject to impeachment, not criminal for actions taken even tangentially related to their office, so several constitutional scholars say. But, as I said, it has not been litigated to the degree we have now.

If a President or former president can be held criminally for those actions that is a rabbit hole that will destroy our constitution.

 

[Ingomike]

I suppose that's one way to interpret it. Completely wrong. But one way. There's nothing indicating that parts or all of the 14th amendment expire any sooner than any of the other amendments. This is the same reasoning anti-gun zealots use for the 2A. They claim it was for that period and it is not even applicable to the events of today. You can't just explain away the parts of the constitution that you don't like.

No one on INGO is a 14th amendment scholar and even those that are have big disagreements as to its application in this situation. So not explaining away parts of the constitution, but the authors intent in amendments does play a part in judicial proceedings…

 

[Ingomike]

Time to write letters to your red state legislators. Let's start working to get Biden's name off the ballot. That should get the party started. That's what they want.

Thirty years ago or so the parties acted according to MAD (mutually assured destruction). The left said screw it and abandoned that strategy but half the right still wants to turn the other cheek instead of grabbing the whip and driving them out…

 

[Ingomike]

But you've declined to offer any instance where you are willing to criticize Trump and implied that even Republicans who don't like Trump have "TDS" or implied left-wing views.

I'm not saying I disagree with Trump 100%. My issue with Trump isn't disagreeing with him on that much, although he has had some more moderate/left views (PP, take the guns first, lockdowns) that I don't like. My issue is generally his tactics, delivery, staff choices, toxic image, self>party approach, and how well he delivers.

That said, it appears to some that he is the standard bearer and the guiding light to all MAGA.
It doesn't matter who he is criticizing or what stance he takes; MAGA falls in line.
His people can say something clearly stupid, and MAGA falls in line.
It's a weird Trump addiction. I can't think of anyone, especially in politics, that walks on water to so many or above criticism.

We got a taste of the success we could have during the Trump presidency. Why didn’t we get more than a taste? Because the corruption on the left and right attacked the President I voted for, raised money for, and worked to get elected.

Not one person has paid for the corruption that was FISA surveillance, Russian collusion, and even listening in on Trumps calls to foreign leaders. Then in the election no court would allow issues to go to trial.

For years I have heard conservatives lamenting scripted focus group politicians, so we get a pretty straight shooter, says what he is thinking and the uproar that causes.

So, NO I will not be participating in the bash Trump fest the left is formenting on the right…

 

[BugI02]

Lol…you literally compared Trump to Hitler…in a positive light…to try to prove your point.

Your slip is showing, bug.

Wrong again. I was answering the post 'Trump picked lawyers like Hitler picked generals' which was prima facie idiotic if it was meant to suggest Trump couldn't pick competent attorneys. I merely provided an example that disproves the assertion

And speaking of idiotic, I notice you have spun to 'I'm comparing Trump to Hitler' as a fall back position when your assertion that Rommel took cyanide to avoid a trial for his wartime atrocities was proven incorrect and ignorant

One might think someone who likes to throw around the terms Nazi and Hitler might actually take the time to know something about that era beyond the cartoon level portrayals pushed by their fellow travelers

 

[LeftyGunner]

Wrong again. I was answering the post 'Trump picked lawyers like Hitler picked generals' which was prima facie idiotic if it was meant to suggest Trump couldn't pick competent attorneys. I merely provided an example that disproves the assertion

I will freely admit I misunderstood the circumstances surrounding Rommel’s death. I already admitted I am not a student of Nazi history, and I made a mistake.

However, after the responses from other posters and a bit of additional reading, using Rommel as an example of Hitler’s prowess at selecting generals supports JK's position more than your own…Hitler had Rommel killed for conspiring to assassinate him.

The logical conclusion from your example is that the best lawyers Trump hired are the ones currently testifying against him.

And speaking of idiotic, I notice you have spun to 'I'm comparing Trump to Hitler' as a fall back position when your assertion that Rommel took cyanide to avoid a trial for his wartime atrocities was proven incorrect and ignorant

You do love your straw men...I said I mistook your defense of Trump as a defense of Hitler, and I admitted my mistake.

What’s idiotic is the assertion that Rommel was an ideal illustration of Hitler’s ability to pick better generals than Trump‘s ability to pick lawyers.

One might think someone who likes to throw around the terms Nazi and Hitler might actually take the time to know something about that era beyond the cartoon level portrayals pushed by their fellow travelers

I get it, bug…you think Trump picks the best lawyers just like you think Hitler picked the best generals.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

We got a taste of the success we could have during the Trump presidency. Why didn’t we get more than a taste? Because the corruption on the left and right attacked the President I voted for, raised money for, and worked to get elected.

Did you raise money to pay for his campaign or his legal bills? Do you think it is right for a billionaire to use donor money on legal bills?

Lawyers, Trump and money: Ex-president spends millions in donor cash on attorneys as legal woes grow

Trump’s Save America political action committee has paid nearly $37 million to more than 60 law firms and individual attorneys since January 2022, records show.

apnews.com

 

[LeftyGunner]

So in essence you're saying that Trump was an insurrectionist but the J6 riot wasn't an insurrection.

I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.

I think the argument can be made that (at least some of) the J6 rioters did act to (attempt to) keep the duly-elected president-elect from taking office, and those acts arguably do rise to the level of attempted rebellion or insurrection…but I don’t think the argument that Trump was in control of that crowd has much merit.

In other words, I think Trump should be held accountable for his phony elector scheme, and I think the rioters should be held accountable for their actions during the riots…but I don‘t think Trump is criminally liable for the actions of the individual rioters.

 

[BugI02]

It only affirms JK's association of Trump with Hitler to people who think at a superficial level. You thought he was defending Hitler for his choices of Generals. The deeper point was that it's a bad analogy. But you missed that point. And took the self own. [went for the cheap, facile character assassination]

Fixy

 

[jamil]

(Looking at you Nanny Pelosi.)

Nancy wasn't the only loser to pan the protection. McConnell was a part of that decision too.

 

[BugI02]

It does. It proves his competency and that he wasn't just a yes man. Is it not also the opinion of anti-Trump people that Trump hires "yes" people? I've said it. I think that's true. I think Trump likes to be said yes to. Would be great if Trump accidentally hired a no person once or twice.

But again, if Bug's point was to dismantle the analogy of Trump == Hitler, using Rommel as the counterpoint was perfect. Very competent as a Military strategist. Not a yes man. Now tell me you wouldn't orgasm at least a little if one of Trump's own people took him out.

Rommel was an example of what many are always saying they want from the military, a professional soldier, apolitical (he served in the army of Imperial Germany as well as that of the Weimar Republic and the Wehrmacht) and a brilliant tactician in maneuver warfare who was loyal to Germany, not the man in power

 

[KG1]

Did you raise money to pay for his campaign or his legal bills? Do you think it is right for a billionaire to use donor money on legal bills?

Lawyers, Trump and money: Ex-president spends millions in donor cash on attorneys as legal woes grow

Trump’s Save America political action committee has paid nearly $37 million to more than 60 law firms and individual attorneys since January 2022, records show.

apnews.com

I'd be willing to bet that most ardent Trump supporters would be fine with their contributions going toward legal expenses for their candidate since Trump's campaign doesn't seem to be suffering right now due to lack of attention. It's not taking away from his campaign in other words.

 

[DadSmith]

Florida Latino Republicans don’t like Trump’s immigration rhetoric. But they still love Trump.

“I know he’s not Hitler,” says U.S. Rep. Carlos Giménez.

www.politico.com

“We know that Trump is not a diplomatic politician,” Ackerman told Politico. “He has his way of saying things that sound very rude and very aggressive, but that’s the way he talks.”

 

[jamil]

Florida Latino Republicans don’t like Trump’s immigration rhetoric. But they still love Trump.

“I know he’s not Hitler,” says U.S. Rep. Carlos Giménez.

www.politico.com

“We know that Trump is not a diplomatic politician,” Ackerman told Politico. “He has his way of saying things that sound very rude and very aggressive, but that’s the way he talks.”

Again, Trump could just X (tweet) a clarification without making it sound like he has to clarify. Just repeat the same thing but this time with more detail about fentanyl poisoning the blood of Americans. Of course the ClownWorldMedia™ won't cover that. It matters more that many people see it. I don't think anyone would have cared if he'd been more precise.