Trump abandoned the Kurds moved the embassy to Jerusalem and did a sweetheart deal with literal terrorists, as you allude to in your post. The so called Abraham Accords haven’t done anything to “rein Netanyahu in”
It’s clear you need to loosen a few notches on that red hat of yours and let some oxygen back in
The Lincoln Project , howling mad George Conway and his cohorts, no thanks.
For people who constantly go on about Nazism they sure are fond of propaganda.
You should have headed down the bookies then so.
2016 to 2020 is absolutely littered with people poo-pooing concerns raised by folk regarding Trump's aspirations, telling us all it'll never happen. I'm 100% the phrase doom mongering was used to.
And yet, 2016-2020 it's absolutely littered with examples of where it was wrong to do so.
There goes that thin veil of centrism
Everybody predicted he would be a disgrace. And he was.
Some people predicted that he wouldn't leave office if he lost the election. And guess what, Biden has been president for nearly 4 years now.
You aren't making the big revelation you think you are. If Trump gets back in he will again be a disgrace, but come 2028 he will be gone so save me the doom mongering.
So rather than address the examples of notable, demonstrable antagonistic actions you inferred about, you blather on about Biden causing WW3 - the exact hysterical segue you only just previously tutted about?
And airstrikes increased under Trump, while removing the need to report fatalities. The guy was no peacemonger so please don't insult people's intelligence.
So how many of Biden's policies match the actions of the Trump appointed SC re. Roe V Wade? There has been countless stories of calamitous and tragic fallout for women across the US. Personal apocalypses are more potent than some abstract pearl clutching
It's like debating smoke.
Super.
You think I'm doom-mongering and I believe you're patently naive.
Let's hope neither one of us gets to find out who is wrong.
Trump tried everything and anything to remain in office. He’d have not just a few weeks, but 4 years to retool his approach, retool who is in power around him, and try it again.
It’s like suggesting we can feel safe electing Hitler as Chancelor because after all he was defeated once before right.
I wouldn't bother.
In 2016 it was my theory that only trolls, loons and morons voted for Trump. I now discount morons, because anyone stupid enough to genuinely think that Trump is a competent and suitable president is probably not intellectually capable of getting dressed and leaving the house unaided and most likely won't be eligible to vote due to mental incompetence.
That only leaves people who want to see the world burn, either because they are window-licking crazy or they are just hateful creatures.
And as we've seen it is not possible to have a genuine discussion with them.
Again, yet again, no amount of slimy speeches or hints to his base are going to change the constitution, and the constitution specifically states that nobody can serve more than 2 terms.
Anything that doesn't start with "he is going to change the constitution" is just chicken little doom posting.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
Donald J Trump
He's got form on those aspirations for the constitution
You assume that his movement would adhere to the constitution - or the supreme court?
With control of the federal law enforcement apparatus (the Executive) TFG can render the 3rd branch inert. Or simply pack it with ever more loyalist judges with minimal qualifications, if he even has 50 seats in the Senate. Project 2025, baby
He has form for talking shite, but saying those things didn't make them true then and just saying them won't make them true tomorrow.
Is 'talking sh!te' the new 'just being sarcastic'?
Mein Kampf just contained a lot of talking sh!te, you know, just writing it won't make it true.
It's not about changing it, it's about ignoring it.
Who enforces the Constitution?
If Trump just says, I don't want to. Who stops him?
The career civil servants that he had already said he is going to fire off he takes office and replace with loyalists?
The courts that he will pack with door mat judges?
No one is saying it's an easy thing for him to do, but he will absolutely try and the only reason he failed the last time was because a few people put country before loyalty to Trump.
Trump will make sure that there are no people like that in any key roles in any future administrations
Trump already served a term, if I'm not mistaken. 😉
They're getting their "huge advantage" by having Trump there again. Same as how democrats aren't making a mistake by having Joe Biden there despite him not able to serve a third term.
But for purposes of being president they probably shouldn't be legally allowed to put forward someone aged at most 75.
Why can't a 12 year old become president or do lots of things? Well we make assumptions about 12 year olds, that may or may not be accurate in all cases, but are generally a good idea. I don't see why this also can't be done for the oldest old where the chances of them dying in office go through the roof.
12 years old can't become POTUS because the Constitution says 35 years minimum age. No age limit. To set one, you'd need to amend the Constitution.
George Conway mad? Unlikely. Can't say the same for his ex though, alternative facts and all.
FWIW head of the Lincoln Project got SWATted not that long ago. Stochastic GQP terrorism at its finest.
You're also on the record multiple times attacking Jean Carroll and saying she's in it for the money. Seemed to think tweets mean she couldn't be raped. Meanwhile Biden saying **** is "nasty". You seem to view whatever Trump does as defensible. Anyone who had horrific experiences as a result of him are invariably in the wrong. So this make believe that you don't support Trump, nobody buys it.
You keep trotting out the constitution as it it's some sacrosanct shield that can't be circumvented without anyone bothering to change anything in it.
What happens when Trump and team Trump (remember it won't just be him with something to lose) decide after the end of his second term, that they just don't feel like giving up what they have? Are the checks and balances in the US robust enough to withstand another 4 years of Trump and co stacking the deck in their favour preparing for the eventuality when they need to leave.
That's a far, far cry from saying you don't defend him, carry his water, deflect from his failings, his crimes, nor saying that you're not willing to vote for him in November.
We aren't blind here.
TENS of thousands.
I don't know what point you think you are making, Trump having already served a term was the entire point of the conversation, he has already served one of his two possible terms.
If you are trying to say they are getting his "incumbent" advantage now, well that doesn't hold any water at all. He lost when he actually was the incumbent and his numbers in the primaries now are far less than you would expect from an incumbent.
If you mean they will get the incumbent advantage in 2028 when he won't even be running, well, that makes even less sense.
I actually have no idea what your point is.
Apparently its easy to amend the constitution, or to just ignore it. 12 year olds everywhere should just go ahead and run for president anyway.
Easy enough to waffle on about all the wars Trump didn't start - cos drone and air strikes don't count apparently - when his domestic record is a repugnant, functional social regression, and distinctly anti-women. The Roe v Wade thing utterly unconscionable, but look over there; no wars!
Might as well, conservatives argue the 14th is not self-executing.
I am saying they are getting their incumbent advantage now.
His numbers are not "a lot less than you would expect from an incumbent" at all.
They had the incumbent advantage a few years ago and they're cashing in on essentially the same advantage again.
So your point that they're somehow throwing away a potential future incumbent advantage by having him now is what "doesn't hold water".
If you have difficulty understanding this simple point that's your problem.
Given the GOP efforts to bring back child labour, they'd probably have several years work experience by that stage so why not??
anything but mandatory e-verify
(their donors would crucify them)
