Can Donald Trump become President Again?

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,312
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,016
Country
Poland
How do you genuinely believe that I will live forever on a single carrot?

You aren't as clever as everyone thinks you are!
Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.
 

ieatpixels

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
369
Trophies
0
XP
439
Country
Journalism... it's clear they're creating a narrative with a negative bias. I mean even the opening remarks they say Trump called Putin a genius for killing innocent people but that's not true, he said it before the war broke out and was referring to something else about Putin. He's also condemned the Ukraine takeover repeatedly, mainly using it to say it wouldn't have happened if he was in charge but he's said it's awful to see the death and destruction. People judging Trump when in reality no new wars broke out while he was in office. He doesn't deserve the criticism.
Watching the first few mins of the video, like I said earlier it's not accurate reporting but clearly biased in a negative way against 45. It's not hard to provide criticism then provide a counter-argument or alternative viewpoint. That's what's fair to do and it's missing here.
I mean the reporter saying everyone needs to agree that the election was stolen or else the Trump supporters will go after them. What is that accusation even based on? It's a mean, fear mongering thing to say. Bad for both sides.
I haven't seen any of that in the discussions I've read. Having to agree with election fraud or being attacked for believing in it.
I mean 4 minutes in they seem to be implying Trump is dangerous because he believes in "keep your friends close and your enemies closer", but why make that accusation? Putin and Kim Jong-un were kept in check when he was in office.
I'm far from an expert on geopolitics but this is all very basic stuff. "Fake news" hardly even begins to describe this.
I just pity the people who don't know any better. It's important to have scepticism and judge facts over subjective opinions.
Why do they say in a menacing tone, Trump running for pres in 2024 would be having a "very different" leader.
Different how? He was president just recently, we know exactly what to expect. His rhetoric hasn't changed in recent speeches and he's famously very consistent with what he stands for, even saying the same things in the 80s on Oprah and 60 Minutes.
Anyway I don't really care, just writing this on my phone in bed.
If you don't like Trump's character, the way he is unabashed and direct with what he says and you prefer a more hands off, cryptic person to be in power then that's fine.
 

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
390
Trophies
0
XP
520
Country
United States
He's said what he would do with Russia and its far from siding with them.

It's funny that even after being debunked that the left still believes there was collusion between Russia and Trump. It ended up being something fake created by the Hillary campaign. You see how you're not talking to the brightest light on the spool.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,963
Trophies
1
XP
4,687
Country
United Kingdom
It’s almost as if I’ve already mentioned that from the outset and you were just arguing with yourself, as you tend to do.
Actually, I was arguing with you.

However you are so far out of depth you don't realize what I'm saying.

If you are confirming that you are just a troll, then this is progress.

You didn't confirm you supported people choosing their own pronouns. I treat people how they treat others.
So missy, what is it to be?

Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.
Yes, your premise was stupid. That was what I was trying to get through to you.

You seem to only get dumber going forward. Off your meds?

Please get back to us when you are able to hold a discussion without having a mental breakdown.

He's said what he would do with Russia and its far from siding with them.
He says a lot of things, very little of which are true.

In front of Putin he said

“My people came to me, [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

When Putin was not there.

"I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,'" Trump explained, speaking at the White House more than 24 hours after his news conference with Putin began drawing fire from allies and critics alike. "The sentence should have been, 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"

"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself," Trump said.


How can we be sure what Trump would/wouldn't do if he can't keep that story straight.

I mean even the opening remarks they say Trump called Putin a genius for killing innocent people but that's not true, he said it before the war broke out and was referring to something else about Putin.

It was referring to Putin's strategy to invade ukraine.


“I said, ‘This is genius,'” Trump said on a right-wing podcast. “Putin declared a big portion of … Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. … I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force. … We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re going to keep the peace all right. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well.”
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,312
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,016
Country
Poland
Actually, I was arguing with you. However you are so far out of depth you don't realize what I'm saying. If you are confirming that you are just a troll, then this is progress.
You’re doing a drive-by on a conversation I was having with Nothereed. Your initial argument was that “you can’t make your own food” - you can, as described above. This was unsatisfactory to you because “you can’t produce enough food to be completely self-sufficient”, or so I gathered. That counter is stupid - farmers with acres upon acres of land aren’t self-sufficient either, they trade with other people to acquire things they don’t/can’t produce. We never talked about the acceptable amount of “your own food” either - you simply said that you can’t produce any without land, and I proved otherwise. I think that’s about all that was said.
You didn't confirm you supported people choosing their own pronouns. I treat people how they treat others.
So missy, what is it to be?
You can keep going all day long, you’re still not getting me off-kilter with your low-tier bait.
Yes, your premise was stupid. That was what I was trying to get through to you.
Not my premise - Nothereed’s premise. I explicitly said that the subject is far too ridiculous to have a meaningful conversation about - it’s you who’s insisting on having one.
You seem to only get dumber going forward. Off your meds?

Please get back to us when you are able to hold a discussion without having a mental breakdown.
Insulting me won’t illicit a favourable response from me - I understand that you crave attention, but that’s not how you’re going to get it. It’s also against our terms of service. Thankfully I’m not easily offended, you can consider yourself lucky. In case I’m not being clear, this is your verbal warning. I’ve given you ample opportunity and notice to engage in respectful debate, and regardless of how easy-going and forgiving I am, there’s a point at which my hand is forced and rules need to be enforced. It’s not something I generally like doing, so I’d appreciate it if you followed the rules instead of mounting more unsuccessful attempts at trolling - you’re not going to get an emotional response from me, if that’s what you’re after. You seem pretty emotional in your response as it is - perhaps taking a step back and returning with a cooler head would be a good idea.
 

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,488
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,673
Country
Japan
Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.
It's unfortunate that some people take a disagreement with the premise as a concession that the (absurd) premise is noticed, which is enough "permission" to double down on the absurdity. Any kind of response is a desired response to those who aren't interested in reaching an understanding, but in it for some sort of validation for existing.

*At least one is consolidating their posts now. But, it's still everyone else's fault that one didn't do it in the first place.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
741
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
641
Country
United Kingdom
Ooops, clearly I got sidetracked. Not like these weeks have been uneventful ofc. So, what do you know, Roe V Wade being struck down by the RepubliKKKan SC Judges. And a MAGA shooter killed 13 people in Texas yesterday.
 

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
3,666
Trophies
1
XP
4,872
Country
United States
It's funny that even after being debunked that the left still believes there was collusion between Russia and Trump. It ended up being something fake created by the Hillary campaign. You see how you're not talking to the brightest light on the spool.


on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

look at thow they "build" the story out of thin air, using media reporters and social media

Prosecutors asked Mr. Mook about his role in funneling the Alfa Bank claims to the press. Mr. Mook admitted the campaign lacked expertise to vet the data, yet the decision was made by Mr. Mook, policy adviser Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), communications director Jennifer Palmieri and campaign chairman John Podesta to give the Alfa Bank claims to a reporter. Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations then appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication.

On Oct. 31, 2016, Mr. Sullivan issued a statement mentioning the Slate story, writing, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” Mrs. Clinton tweeted Mr. Sullivan’s statement with the comment: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” “Apparently” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.

So there's our current national security adviser, taking part in a scheme to publish a smear of known bullshit against a political opponent, then going on Twitter to link to the published story and puff it up as monumentally damning stuff. Nice.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,312
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,016
Country
Poland
on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

look at thow they "build" the story out of thin air, using media reporters and social media

So there's our current national security adviser, taking part in a scheme to publish a smear of known bullshit against a political opponent, then going on Twitter to link to the published story and puff it up as monumentally damning stuff. Nice.
Well of course, this is a surprise to no one, at least not to people paying attention. The probe is turning up exactly what everyone had already suspected. That being said, the story is “older than two weeks”, so it effectively doesn’t matter, that’s how the media cycle works. Clinton will get away with this, just like she got away when breaking federal law in the past. If anything, this vindicates people who had to suffer the indignity of being called “conspiracy theorists” for pointing out the obvious.
 

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
390
Trophies
0
XP
520
Country
United States
on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

look at thow they "build" the story out of thin air, using media reporters and social media



So there's our current national security adviser, taking part in a scheme to publish a smear of known bullshit against a political opponent, then going on Twitter to link to the published story and puff it up as monumentally damning stuff. Nice.

I had been lightly following the subject, but this is news to me. The Russian collusion was a hoax. Sadly, there are die hard holdouts that weren't swayed by the Mueller investigation results that still to this day claim Trump colluded with Russia. Can't fix stupid, so I don't even try.
 

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
741
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
641
Country
United Kingdom
I had been lightly following the subject, but this is news to me. The Russian collusion was a hoax. Sadly, there are die hard holdouts that weren't swayed by the Mueller investigation results that still to this day claim Trump colluded with Russia. Can't fix stupid, so I don't even try.
It wasn't a hoax, Trump himself wasn't convinced but his inner circle was. The fact that he pardoned them doesn't mean it didn't happen.
What wasn’t debunked? Who said anything about debunking? We’re talking about the Durham probe. Reading troubles again?
You were talking about Russian interference?
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,312
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,016
Country
Poland
It wasn't a hoax, Trump himself wasn't convinced but his inner circle was. The fact that he pardoned them doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You were talking about Russian interference?
Nobody was talking about Russian interference - we know that Russia interfered in the election. We’re talking about fabricated accusations against the Trump campaign, and how they were used to trick the F.B.I. into investigating a conspiracy that didn’t exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonhathonBaxster

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
741
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
641
Country
United Kingdom
Nobody was talking about Russian interference - we know that Russia interfered in the election. We’re talking about fabricated accusations against the Trump campaign, and how they were used to trick the F.B.I. into investigating a conspiracy that didn’t exist.
If Russia did interfere with the election and Manafort was indicted... then how is it a conspiracy?
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras: Joan Jett, Patti Smith, Alice Cooper