Trump on Joe Rogan

[mandrill]

I disagree. I know a lot of people. The only ones I know that are raising the fascist issue never voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020.

I'm sure there are a very small group of people that are persuaded by this argument. However, the polling strongly suggests the argument that Democracy is under threat is not landing.

If anything, "Fascist", "Hitler" are great rallying cries to motivate liberal voters. And because the Democrats have put this into the news, the liberal media echo chamber can repeat this over and over again in their newscasts for the next week.

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

 

[Butler1000]

Will we?
In what way?
What is going to count as "finding out"?

On election day. At this point all arguments and policy are out there. All history known. Over 40 million and counting have advanced voted out of about 200 million.

Wisconsin was within 20,000 in 2020. The Muslim vote has collapsed in Michigan for Harris putting it back to the probability of a 10,000 vote difference in 2016. Pennsylvania I saw a poll they were within 0.1% of eachother.

And in the end, despite the bleating if partisans on both sides, the world won't end, democracy won't end, and 2 years after the mid terms will happen(and talk will begin on those the day after as a solution).

And either way I will have fun trolling on the board.

So finding out is watching what the winner does. It's that simple.

 

[Valcazar]

I disagree. I know a lot of people. The only ones I know that are raising the fascist issue never voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020.

That does not mean they are not voting against him because they perceive a fascist threat.
Just because he was the worse candidate in their eyes in the past doesn't mean this isn't a reason they are voting against him now.

That said, it is clear I misunderstood what you were arguing, which was that you don't think people who would otherwise vote for him are voting against him due to this.

I'm sure there are a very small group of people that are persuaded by this argument. However, the polling strongly suggests the argument that Democracy is under threat is not landing.

I agree.
It's a fundamental tragedy that it isn't.
The US electorate really doesn't want to believe Trump when he tells them what he wants to do.
They just cannot accept it, and so make sure not to believe it.

There are not nearly enough people taking it seriously.

If anything, "Fascist", "Hitler" are great rallying cries to motivate liberal voters. And because the Democrats have put this into the news, the liberal media echo chamber can repeat this over and over again in their newscasts for the next week.

It's mostly exhausting to liberal voters, actually.
Everyone would far prefer it wasn't on the table.

 

[Valcazar]

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

That's not Wyatt's argument.
Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the point he is making.
It is whether or not it is motivating people to switch votes.

 

[mandrill]

That's not Wyatt's argument.
Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the point he is making.
It is whether or not it is motivating people to switch votes.

I agree with that. Everyone who gives a shit has already got the point. And calling someone a "fascist" is overdone and ineffective.

I called my dog a "fascist" yesterday and he still wouldn't get off the couch.

 

[Valcazar]

On election day. At this point all arguments and policy are out there. All history known. Over 40 million and counting have advanced voted out of about 200 million.

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Who wins the election isn't going to show us anything about who the MIC supports, since they are - as you pointed out - hedging their bets.

 

[WyattEarp]

Silly.

The Afghan War was unsustainable.

I'm sure there were many in military leadership who thought we should maintain some type of defense perimeter around Kabul and other controllable regions indefinitely. That seems to be the situation we found ourselves the last years of the war. I don't think the U.S. military was directly confronting the militias in the remote regions. Perhaps bombs and missiles being expended periodically was the extent of war-making towards the end.

The U.S. military leadership is biased towards maintaining a large, global footprint. I like Trump's rhetoric of reducing our footprint and/or expecting allies to contribute more to their own defense. I don't think Trump was very successful in reducing our footprint his first four years. On the matter of allies ponying up on defense, I think he takes unfair flak for that. For good reasons and bad reasons, I can see why U.S. Generals and Admirals would want all the hardware and troops to be American.

I generally side with Butler's argument that the U.S. military leadership is too cozy with defense contractors. It's been a debated point for over sixty years for good reason. Hence, Eisenhower's use of the term "military-industrial complex". I'm not as overwhelmed with the idea that the Democrats support wars. I think Presidents from both parties have a hard time controlling the military leadership.

I think when Trump tells the story of General Milley saying it would be cheaper to leave our hardware in Afghanistan it's very funny. I'm sure it is exaggerated to an extent. However, I am cynical enough to believe that Milley's thinking leave it, we can just buy more stuff.

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry, I only know one kind of boring.

You should expand your horizons.
There is a whole world of possibilities out there.

Ok I reread it and I stand behind my previous statement but I'm not surprised that you get confused so easily. It's sort of a theme with you and again, I can totally understand based on your intelligence or lack thereof.

LOL!!!
Adorable.

Leave me alone? Now that sounds boring. Like you.

You're coming across kind of desperate and needy here.
Don't worry, when you say something that piques my interest, I'll comment.

 

[Butler1000]

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Who wins the election isn't going to show us anything about who the MIC supports, since they are - as you pointed out - hedging their bets.

I'm sure this is a compelling point to you, but it's opinion. That's it. If Harris wins and the wars continue and expand then they are happy, and under her, they will.

If Trump wins and they continue and expand then hey, I was wrong, oh ah big deal, the USA has been waging proxy wars and regime changes since the 1950's so it's the same again. I won't lose sleep about it.

But if he doesn't or lessens them, then I'm right, less people get killed. Great!

But either way it will have absolutely no affect on my life as it stands. Just as the last 8 years of Trump/Biden didn't either. It's just an intellectual exercise. A move perhaps of the USA Overton window, a continued migration/realignment of demographics between the two parties.

And ultimately what I consider to be the real change that is world occurring of an increased tendency toward isolationism that if some of the economic/demographics collapses occur in Japan, China, Russia, and more coupled with more xenophobia, this will accelerate in the USA.

And who ever gets election now and after will only be a symptom, not a catalyst or a solution.

 

[richaceg]

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

The media skewered bits and pieces of this to make a narrative...you need to move on from Jan 6. It was the biggest nothingburger and you guys are clinging like flies to shit....

 

[mandrill]

The media skewered bits and pieces of this to make a narrative...you need to move on from Jan 6. It was the biggest nothingburger and you guys are clinging like flies to shit....

Absolutely. The Capitol gets stormed by wannabe dicktators every second Friday at 3 PM.

 

[richaceg]

I'm sure this is a compelling point to you, but it's opinion. That's it. If Harris wins and the wars continue and expand then they are happy, and under her, they will.

If Trump wins and they continue and expand then hey, I was wrong, oh ah big deal, the USA has been waging proxy wars and regime changes since the 1950's so it's the same again. I won't lose sleep about it.

But if he doesn't or lessens them, then I'm right, less people get killed. Great!

But either way it will have absolutely no affect on my life as it stands. Just as the last 8 years of Trump/Biden didn't either. It's just an intellectual exercise. A move perhaps of the USA Overton window, a continued migration/realignment of demographics between the two parties.

And ultimately what I consider to be the real change that is world occurring of an increased tendency toward isolationism that if some of the economic/demographics collapses occur in Japan, China, Russia, and more coupled with more xenophobia, this will accelerate in the USA.

And who ever gets election now and after will only be a symptom, not a catalyst or a solution.

You seem to underestimate the liberals here...they are fully invested on orangeman. It kills them that this guy became the president and might become a president again...like us debating here have merit on what could be the outcome....lol..we can all rumble and nothing will effect the US elections..it's the Americans who will decide...heck a kamala presidency might bring in some.Venezuelan hotties to Canada too..

 

[richaceg]

Absolutely. The Capitol gets stormed by wannabe dicktators every second Friday at 3 PM.

What has that got to do with Trump? He never encouraged violence...there's a lot more violence from the democrats...

 

[squeezer]

I ended it with Alexandra - or Lexi as I call her - because we argued about Gaza. She's just with you to make me jealous and win me back.

Good, the less competition works better for me. I have a rule, politics doesn't enter my hottie equation. I'd bang BOBO if I could but I wouldn't marry her.

She won't want you back. I am going to tell her about your monkey ball-licking fetish.

 

[mandrill]

Good, the less competition works better for me. I have a rule, politics doesn't enter my hottie equation. I'd bang BOBO if I could but I wouldn't marry her.

She won't want you back. I am going to tell her about your monkey ball-licking fetish.

I fucked her with my monkey-tail and she squealed with delight. Top that!!

 

[Butler1000]

I'm sure there were many in military leadership who thought we should maintain some type of defense perimeter around Kabul and other controllable regions indefinitely. That seems to be the situation we found ourselves the last years of the war. I don't think the U.S. military was directly confronting the militias in the remote regions. Perhaps bombs and missiles being expended periodically was the extent of war-making towards the end.

The U.S. military leadership is biased towards maintaining a large, global footprint. I like Trump's rhetoric of reducing our footprint and/or expecting allies to contribute more to their own defense. I don't think Trump was very successful in reducing our footprint his first four years. On the matter of allies ponying up on defense, I think he takes unfair flak for that. For good reasons and bad reasons, I can see why U.S. Generals and Admirals would want all the hardware and troops to be American.

I generally side with Butler's argument that the U.S. military leadership is too cozy with defense contractors. It's been a debated point for over sixty years for good reason. Hence, Eisenhower's use of the term "military-industrial complex". I'm not as overwhelmed with the idea that the Democrats support wars. I think Presidents from both parties have a hard time controlling the military leadership.

I think when Trump tells the story of General Milley saying it would be cheaper to leave our hardware in Afghanistan it's very funny. I'm sure it is exaggerated to an extent. However, I am cynical enough to believe that Milley's thinking leave it, we can just buy more stuff.

CIA loved them poppy fields and proximity to the Russian and Iranian Border as well.....

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Watch till end of the clip for Trump. Funny.

"Bibi, What the F***?": What Biden Told Netanyahu | Vantage with Palki Sharma

Biden Abused Netanyahu Over Gaza War?: Woodward's New Tell-All Book | Vantage with Palki SharmaVeteran American journalist Bob Woodward has come out with a t...

www.youtube.com

 

[mitchell76]

LMAO

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850997481615868251

 

[The Oracle]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850915046060167660

I tried this and it's true....Much harder to find the video now...Hmmm I wonder why?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850915046060167660

I tried this and it's true....Much harder to find the video now...Hmmm I wonder why?

Appears as a first result for me.