Indeed - That was the lie that they told the world to allow them to push through their agenda.
But sure.. it was "different"..
That's politics. Do you think the other side wouldn't have done it if they had the same hand? The GOP has not proposed or threatened any measures that are away from traditional norms.
Who won doesn't prove a system's democratic prowess. It's not about providing a broad range of support - it's a literal popularity contest and either FPTP or proportional representation is a much fairer means to guage a candidate than the archaic electoral college system.
Good that you mention California because it's rather crazy that tiny rural states wield as much power as urban ones; EC made sense when that divide wasn't as pronounced, populations relatively balanced - yet it is ludicrous now. Even aside from the obvious democratic deficit.
Ha…I was wondering if the Primaries would activate some MAGA-bots. Didn’t seem like it would, but then just like waiting for a bus, 2 come at once!
I’d wonder if our latest contributors had taken a moment to considered why they are offering full-troughted support to a man who not only would use (or even rape) anyone for his own selfish ends, but also literally *let Rome burn* for those same selfish ends. Not to serve his nation, not out of some kind of political ideoligy, but to protect his own incontinent ass from the legal troubles he had brought onto himself.
People died, democracy was damaged and a whole swath of far-right supporters removed their masks to openly show themselves as supporters of facism. All for the whims of a man who wouldn’t even piss on them if they were on fire.
But of course, I know there’s little point in actually debating these kind of people when they appear, they are not here for that. They are likely here in the hope that they’ll find a kindred spirit who’ll share their enraged little view of the world. 2 posters appear to have found each other, and I hope they’ll enjoy being angry together. Meanwhile the rest of us can continue debating in the real world., unsullied by a red mist of anger about scary forigeners, or those damn woke libs!!
To put your question back to you - Do you think that GOP strategists wouldn't be talking about things like expanding the Supreme Court if they were looking at a decade or more of a Liberal super-majority?
In terms of the EC - The GOP have won the popular vote for President once since Reagan (Bush in '04) , yet they've won the White House 4 times out of 9.
If that performance was reversed and the national demographic picture was reversed do you think the GOP wouldn't be talking about potential EC reform??
Like you say , it's Politics so you can't try to hold the Democrats up as some kind of "threat to democracy" .
Cool story
Trump isnt in Davos person this week but boy is he there in the heads of most of the attendees.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Wednesday praised former President Donald Trump’s record and admonished Democrats to be “more respectful” of Trump’s supporters, or else risk hurting President Joe Biden’s reelection bid.
“I think this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden’s election campaign,” Dimon said from the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Dimon argued that using the phrase “MAGA” incorrectly links Trump’s supporters to the former president’s personality and character.
Democrats “are basically scapegoating them, [saying] that you are like him,” Dimon said. “I don’t think they’re voting for Trump because of his family values,” he said.
Dimon also gave Trump credit for his policy record.
“Take a step back, be honest. He was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Trade tax reform worked. He was right about some of China.”
More people should listen to this man as opposed to the cretins who think Trump didnt have one good policy.
Nah, try again, low effort.
Something worth something found at mar a lardo
Yeah, my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
These claims about upholding democracy and freedom do make me smile.
I like reading Dimon. He is observant and intelligent.
You seem to have anger issues. Perhaps TDS?
Why do you assume I'm a bot? I'm a real poster, as are you, presumably.
"TDS?"
Good god. Are people still wheeling this out when people point out the sh1t Trump did?
No tongue-in-cheek allowed on this forum, son. These are the same posters who were cheerleading Michael Avenatti (a convicted felon) because he was on 'their' side. Don't pay any attention to that morally corrupt nonsense
These are the same posters who were cheerleading Michael Avenatti (a convicted felon) because he was on 'their' side.
Source please
A quick search and you can find all the proof you need.
Then satisfy your burden of proof so easily.
If one makes a claim, one should at the very least evidence it.
I'm not going to embarrass individual posters on their hypocrisy like that. I do have a moral compass.
Then you're backpedaling away from your claim for lack of standing, good lad.
See response above. Thanks
Thank you for confirming the backpedal.
It’s kind of nice when an earlier point gets illustrated so clearly like that. What we’re seeing here on this page is an attempt to create a little pro-MAGA support group. The members of whom are likely frustrated with how much push back and possible ridicule they experience for supporting someone as universally disliked as the convicted rapist who leads the GOP.
In this brief moment of respite, they can nudge each other on the shoulder and say “Look there brother! The deranged cohort of libs are suggesting that trying to destroy the seat of government with an angry mob is somehow wrong, or that it wasn’t magically Antifa or that it happened at all when we feel like pretending. Why, they are just being immoral for not endorsing that fine business man, whose only real crime was forcing himself upon a woman, or stealing state secrets or attempting to rig the results of a States election by trying to encourage people to invent votes or various kinds of financial crimes? I mean…who hasn’t done all of the above at least once?! We’re only human after all.»
But you know, the rest of us are of course morally bankrupt and give an attention-grabbing dimwit lawyer a free pass for being «on our side». Good thing we have these folk with their impeccable moral compass to help us out :P
Once again, do your own search. I have made my point.
You made an unfounded allegation and haven't provided any evidence for it. No point therefore scored.
You haven't made any "point" all you've done is made an unsupported claim, 1 you present as a fact but have done nothing to actually evidence.
Then when asked to support said claim, waffle about "do your own search" if the point is anything other than you're not engaging in an honest discussion and assessment? I think it might well be missed 😉
Proof would be good cause atm, I'm seeing a lot of Trump supporters salivating at the prospect of getting a rapist back in office... I'm fine with saying Michael Avenatti is a scumbag, you or @MisterAnarchy on the other hand aren't likely to even admit that Trump is a rapist. Instead it's hard done by Trump.
Michael Avenatti was relevant in 2015/16.. about 8 or 9 years ago.
Whatever people thought of him back then, it changed when people learned more about him.
Trump fans on the other hand, only like their guy *more*, regardless of what came to light about him.
Can you see the false equivalency?
Are we really having an honest discussion? It seems most posts here are merely based on hearsay about Trump. And wasn't there a mention of syphilis in the conversation a few pages back? Utter nonsense!!
The rapist part is true though, gonna comment on that?
