Donald Trump reveals plans for second term

[Valcazar]

No the DNC is retarded, polls showed Biden, and maybe Kamala (although she is more popular then Biden now) were literally the only Dems who would lose to Trump, so the DNC makes sure their is no way to challenge Genocidal Joe for the nomination. The Dems could run a fucking mop and beat Trump, but not Biden, DNC cheats to make sure Biden wins the nom.

Its Hillary all over again.

So don't blame the voters, blamebthe corrupt mother fuckers at the DNC.

Ahh yes... "The all powerful DNC".

 

[Valcazar]

Sure, but most of those were GOP actions and just standard GOP policy.
The only really serious damage was SCOTUS and you can't credit rump for that.

That was 4 years ago, before he can't stop falling asleep and farting himself awake.
He's dangerous, but who is left working with him who is competent and not in jail?

I appreciate you want to whistle past the graveyard.
First off, if you think those other things weren't serious damage, you are kidding yourself.
Secondly, the very fact his people will be what you consider "incompetent" is part of the problem.
The "competent" people told him what he couldn't do and worked to stop him - they will be gone.

And if you think all of that is boiler plate GOP and they just didn't think they could get away with it until Trump, then you should be more terrified, since putting them in power means they will push forward without any worry of consequences.

 

[kherg007]

Did the USA invade Canada recently?
Because if they did, I'd be good with receiving support from other countries.

There will not be any competent person anywhere near Trump if he wins. Only true believers willing to ignore the law upon request. Every goddam one of them knows whatever they do for Trump he will pardon them. That includes proud boys assaulting critics and destroying election locations popular with dems.
Is there any of you who really believe he won't do that?
He's already pardoning the rioters. He pardoned all his goons last time. He has not one ounce of class or moral fiber or standards that aren't 100% donald trump and fuck everybody else. Period.

 

[Frankfooter]

I appreciate you want to whistle past the graveyard.
First off, if you think those other things weren't serious damage, you are kidding yourself.
Secondly, the very fact his people will be what you consider "incompetent" is part of the problem.
The "competent" people told him what he couldn't do and worked to stop him - they will be gone.

And if you think all of that is boiler plate GOP and they just didn't think they could get away with it until Trump, then you should be more terrified, since putting them in power means they will push forward without any worry of consequences.

Then you deal with it after you deal with ending the genocide.
You don't reward Biden for aiding genocide just to keep rump out of power.
You deal with one problem at a time.

 

[TomFord1980]

But you are arguing for Trump, so you are clearly against having "adults in the room".

Trump will win in 2024 and you will love it deep down. The inmates will no longer be running the asylum.

 

[TomFord1980]

Did the USA invade Canada recently?
Because if they did, I'd be good with receiving support from other countries.

From China and Russia? Your communism is showing

 

[TomFord1980]

I'm not going to debate if this conflict is winnable. Ukraine is defending its homeland. Just like the Vietnamese against the USA. While not exactly similar, I think just laying down and letting Russia takeover is a terrible idea. Would you do the same if the US invaded Canada?

And, here's something to think about: that money being spent on military equipment is still going into the US economy. While it could be spent on better things, like healthcare or education, allowing Russia to basically rollover anyone it wants is not good policy. You should look at a history book, there is this dude, Neville Chamberlin, who though allowing Hitler to take Czechoslovakia would appease him and mean no further conflict. That lasted a couple of years...

You sir should also consult the history books. Youll be shocked to hear that after the soviet union fell, the USA promised not to advance Nato to Russias borders. Guess what Nato did. Should Russia simply lie down?

 

[squeezer]

You sir should also consult the history books. Youll be shocked to hear that after the soviet union fell, the USA promised not to advance Nato to Russias borders. Guess what Nato did. Should Russia simply lie down?

Reading is your friend. Take your time and go through this slowly and absorb it fully.

You're very welcome!!!

NATO-Russia: setting the record straight

www.nato.int

 

[squeezer]

Kaitlin Collins is hot and also a beast in a very sexy way!!!

Fed-Up CNN Host EVISCERATES Republican hack on-air, Leaves him STUNNED

 

[oil&gas]

Reading is your friend. Take your time and go through this slowly and absorb it fully.

You're very welcome!!!

NATO-Russia: setting the record straight

www.nato.int

Apparently NATO has no plan of expansion into Russia in the near term.
Their immediate concern is Russian expansion into NATO-Europe. Hence,
they are scared by the prospect of being coerced into having to increase
military aid to Ukraine by Trump for their own protection. Europe only wants
to fight Putin on the cheap.

 

[Valcazar]

Then you deal with it after you deal with ending the genocide.
You don't reward Biden for aiding genocide just to keep rump out of power.
You deal with one problem at a time.

As I've said - "The point here is to punish Biden for his position" is fine.
I think it is wrong and short sighted, but its honest.

It is when you were lying about that being what you wanted that I objected.

Of course, it also leads to this well known problem.

 

[Valcazar]

Trump will win in 2024 and you will love it deep down. The inmates will no longer be running the asylum.

At least you don't pretend to take yourself seriously.
So that's good.

 

[Valcazar]

From China and Russia? Your communism is showing

From anyone.

If the US decides to invade Canada, then anyone sending support is going to be acceptable in a crisis.
Why would you expect any different?

Also, why on earth would accepting money from Russia be "communism"?
Russia isn't remotely a communist country.

 

[Valcazar]

You sir should also consult the history books. Youll be shocked to hear that after the soviet union fell, the USA promised not to advance Nato to Russias borders. Guess what Nato did. Should Russia simply lie down?

He would be shocked to hear that, since it didn't happen that way.

 

[Frankfooter]

As I've said - "The point here is to punish Biden for his position" is fine.
I think it is wrong and short sighted, but its honest.

It is when you were lying about that being what you wanted that I objected.

Of course, it also leads to this well known problem.

View attachment 322276

You want to reward Biden for aiding genocide and spending $37 billion more on cops to help keep universities under control?
If Biden ignores that demographic, can the dems win?

This discussion about reward and punishment for politicians is really quite anti democratic.
If you really support democracy shouldn't you be arguing that you need to vote for the person that represents what you want in government?
Being 'pragmatic' just assures that US democracy will never have a need to support politicians you actually back.

 

[Valcazar]

You want to reward Biden for aiding genocide and spending $37 billion more on cops to help keep universities under control?
If Biden ignores that demographic, can the dems win?

Your problem is thinking of it in terms of "reward".

This discussion about reward and punishment for politicians is really quite anti democratic.

It isn't "anti-democratic", don't be so hard on yourself.
It is just a misunderstanding of how voting works in the system and what the effects of making electoral choices are.

But I agree, you need to stop thinking of it that way.

If you really support democracy shouldn't you be arguing that you need to vote for the person that represents what you want in government?

Yes.
I keep trying to get you to understand that it is about getting the government you want and not representing some moral act of purity on your part.

Being 'pragmatic' just assures that US democracy will never have a need to support politicians you actually back.

That you cannot wrap your mind around how the system works is a problem.
Again, I am sympathetic since people are taught this the wrong way.

The system is such that it fails the favorite betrayal criterion and so voting your favorite works against you getting the result you want.
That may suck, but it is a well known problem in plurality voting.
Given that there is a plurality voting system in place, you either deal with reality or you don't.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your problem is thinking of it in terms of "reward".

That is so hilarious.
You are the one that brought reward and punishment into this discussion as what you argued are the primary motivations.
I continued to argue that holding a moral line that says you can't vote for genocide is my primary motivation.
Now you argue its wrong to think in the terms you tried to frame the debate with?

It isn't "anti-democratic", don't be so hard on yourself.
It is just a misunderstanding of how voting works in the system and what the effects of making electoral choices are.

It is anti democratic. You vote for the politician that best represents your views of government. Voting strategically or being 'pragmatic' is not good for democracy long term.

But I agree, you need to stop thinking of it that way.

I don't think of it as punishment/reward.
Those are your views.
Feel free to keep them to yourself now.

Yes.
I keep trying to get you to understand that it is about getting the government you want and not representing some moral act of purity on your part.

Not getting a government that aids genocide is pretty primary, valcazar.
Never forget.

That you cannot wrap your mind around how the system works is a problem.
Again, I am sympathetic since people are taught this the wrong way.

The system is such that it fails the favorite betrayal criterion and so voting your favorite works against you getting the result you want.
That may suck, but it is a well known problem in plurality voting.
Given that there is a plurality voting system in place, you either deal with reality or you don't.

I know how poorly the system works.
But why shouldn't you do your best to try to make it change and work instead of voting for the least evil option and pushing it further down the road of disfunction?

 

[Valcazar]

That is so hilarious.
You are the one that brought reward and punishment into this discussion as what you argued are the primary motivations.
I continued to argue that holding a moral line that says you can't vote for genocide is my primary motivation.
Now you argue its wrong to think in the terms you tried to frame the debate with?

Yes, because that's what you are doing.

"Holding a moral line that you can't vote for genocide" is exactly that.
"Biden did wrong, and must suffer punishment for it."

Because you have made it clear you aren't voting to effect the genocide in any way.
You have, in fact, argued that the genocide will be over by November and therefore not on the ballot at all.

It is anti democratic. You vote for the politician that best represents your views of government. Voting strategically or being 'pragmatic' is not good for democracy long term.

Yes.
I understand you refuse to accept the reality of the voting system.
We've been over this and you are either going to educate yourself on that one day or not.
My guess is not.

I don't think of it as punishment/reward.
Those are your views.
Feel free to keep them to yourself now.

I am sorry that the truth makes you uncomfortable.

Not getting a government that aids genocide is pretty primary, valcazar.
Never forget.

But you aren't getting that with your vote.
You know this.

I know how poorly the system works.
But why shouldn't you do your best to try to make it change and work instead of voting for the least evil option and pushing it further down the road of disfunction?

But you aren't "doing your best to try and to make it change and work instead".
You are burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

And I get it, "I won't vote for the lesser evil, I prefer more evil" is a choice you are fine with.
I'm not.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, because that's what you are doing.

"Holding a moral line that you can't vote for genocide" is exactly that.
"Biden did wrong, and must suffer punishment for it."

Because you have made it clear you aren't voting to effect the genocide in any way.
You have, in fact, argued that the genocide will be over by November and therefore not on the ballot at all.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my views to reframe them within your own personal mandate.
From my position voters don't punish politicians, they choose whether to support them or not. To call it punishment infers they own my vote already and its just being mean to withhold it. I understand I don't control them and I owe no party any allegiance and my only power is to actively choose to support or not support a politician. Not to 'punish' them. That is your term and your frame work, which I disagree with. I find that logic to be anti democratic and even too pessimistic of the system you claim to support.

Yes.
I understand you refuse to accept the reality of the voting system.
We've been over this and you are either going to educate yourself on that one day or not.
My guess is not.

Ah yes, back to scolding me for not having taken your courses or bowing to your framework of how you think democracy works.
Back to scolding me for honouring Never Again.

I am sorry that the truth makes you uncomfortable.

Why would you think I'm uncomfortable?

But you aren't getting that with your vote.
You know this.

I'll vote NDP here next election. In my riding they may win.

But you aren't "doing your best to try and to make it change and work instead".
You are burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

And I get it, "I won't vote for the lesser evil, I prefer more evil" is a choice you are fine with.
I'm not.

To return to your odd framework, I won't 'reward' aid to genocide.
You will.

For you, how does supporting the slightly less genocidal choice result in not just a series of ever more genocidal extremists?
How do you not do anything but aid the system to get slightly worse by supporting slightly less evil?

 

[squeezer]

MAGA Republican SHOCKS Reporter with DANGEROUS STUNT!