Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Which cases exactly?
Trump Post Election News.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Airedale260
Well-known member
Trump v WEC. Notable for the fact that the presiding judge was a Trump appointee:
DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
Basically, the kicker is that the "parties agreed to a stipulation of a set of facts", as well as the fact that Trump waited until after the actual election was complete to challenge the rules, even when he and the campaign knew them months ahead of time (think of it as Team A wins the Super Bowl, but Team B claims the refs screwed up a play that resulted in A winning. However, Team B didn't bother to challenge the play until after the game was over). It's not perfect, but that's the gist.
I'm not going to disagree that the whole setup resulted in headaches, but as the below National Review article (NR being a publication that is decidedly not part of the progressive media machine) points out, that's not what Trump and Co alleged:
A 2020 Election Audit Is a Bad Idea for Pennsylvania Republicans | National Review
They should focus on protecting the integrity of elections against the many real threats of fraud, not chase down conspiracy theories.
www.nationalreview.com
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Trump v WEC. Notable for the fact that the presiding judge was a Trump appointee:
DocumentCloud
Rinos exist. Trump clearly didn't realise how many people would stab him in the back (like Mitch McConnell), the judge being a Trump appointee means less than nothing. Whoever wrote this document is also overtly biased. Like, this is beyond what someone who would be opposed to Trump's claim in court would write. This is so ridiculously biased that I can't even give it any credence. It reads like something you'd see in Vice or Buzzfeed.
Incorrect, Trump tried getting his day in court and judges refused to hear it or as previously mentioned in one case, no judge was appointed to a case till it was too late. Trump asked for an audit on some of the findings and all that was done was a recount and not a proper audit. I'm disregarding the link you posted as I simply don't trust it. There was far too much of a concentrated effort to cheat Trump out of his victory.
It's a headache because the election was shady as fuck. Here's an article from the BBC from 2016 in which they go through various red flags, notice how many of them apply to the 2020 election.I'm not going to disagree that the whole setup resulted in headaches, but as the below National Review article (NR being a publication that is decidedly not part of the progressive media machine) points out, that's not what Trump and Co alleged:
A 2020 Election Audit Is a Bad Idea for Pennsylvania Republicans | National Review
They should focus on protecting the integrity of elections against the many real threats of fraud, not chase down conspiracy theories.
I'm not at all convinced and I'm definitely certain that Trump got shafted out of a fair election and a second term. Hell, there's a Time Magazine article where it was outright admitted that a cabal of politicians, big tech etc came together to "fortify" the election.
[Edit] I fucked up the formatting so I edited the post.
Megadeath
Well-known member
If you prefer, the raw transcript is right here:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2hMP1BEizYXf6LYYy-Cv7x
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Link doesn't work. Looked at Democracy Docket homepage, looks like agitprop.
Airedale260
Well-known member
They’re PDFs of the actual court decision and the appeal, and because you don’t like the outcome and don’t trust me, you claim it’s biased. Whereas people post videos by random YouTubers, but somehow those are A-OK because they conform to your preferred version of reality.
As for that BBC article…there is a world of difference between the United States and Gabon. The broader point of it, though, is that in a society with no recognized safeguards, where serious boards of elections aren’t actually a thing, yes, they are prone to problems. But that’s Gabon, not the U.S., which, despite the massive amounts of whining by the Democrats in 2000 and 2016, and Trump in 2020, does have a strong tradition of free and fair elections, as well as peaceful transitions.
As for the Time article? Yeah, I know about it, and it was discussed on these very boards. It can be best summed up as “We Democrats put together a really good ground game in 2020, aided by favorable media coverage and the fact that our guy was milquetoast and hidden in a basement, while the opponent kept shooting his mouth off, and repeatedly shot himself in the foot by making things about him as opposed to the issues, since a lot of swing voters supported him on the issues but despised him personally. Oh, and the headline of this was a massive troll job.”
That the Democrats have a massive media machine completely in the tank for them, and love to attack Republicans, is not new. Is it fair, no, but life isn’t fair, either.
Meanwhile, I see how you completely ignore my points about Trump depressing GOP turnout in the runoffs, despite the fact that Republicans in Georgia openly admitted that they weren’t voting because the president said their votes didn’t matter since it was all rigged.
Riiight.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
I don't trust who ever wrote that and I didn't post any Youtube videos so I don't know where that came from.
Okay? So what? The BBC provided a list of suspicious activities. If there was one or two, sure, may be a coincidence but there were so many similarities that it's impossible to not see the election as incredibly suspicious.
"We put together a really good ground game," is not how any rational person would say it when you have near the entire social and tech world coming together to unceasingly tar and hamstring one candidate while pushing the other candidate as the second coming of Christ. I don't really care how you try to spin it or downplay it, it unfairly advantaged one candidate because the platforms (ha, platforms!) skewed the whole thing in favour of one person. You don't smear someone for five years straight and stack every platform against him without successfully brainwashing a load of people.
You're right, it's not fair. It's also pretty scummy when you have teachers being shown to be largely partisan and trying to convert kids at a very young age when they don't have the maturity to know someone is indoctrinating them. I'd post videos but apparently that would be bad.
Trump depressing turnouts? Are you serious? Did you see the volume of people attending his rallies and risking the China Virus? Do you honestly think more people voted for Biden than voted for Obama as well? I suppose we'll have to see what happens in regards to the republicans who sided with the democrats when the next election cycle is up. I imagine the US will be in for some interesting times.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
At this point I'm convinced that Airedale260 himself is a RINO; insofar as he only seems to care about the tribalistic aspects of politics. That's why he's so desperate to justify ousting Trump and his supporters; because they're not members of his tribe.
He isn't the only onem
Airedale260
Well-known member
Edit to add first sentence: My broader point is that there are a bunch of people who make the same arguments you do, and use videos by random people as an argument that something is true.
Anyway…back to your regularly scheduled postings…
Okay, let’s try this again: That is the actual text as written by the judge who ruled on this court case, along with the court of appeal who heard the Trump campaign’s ruling. I literally gave you the written text of the court’s decision. Not a news article, the actual decision as pulled from PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).
“This article about a completely different country which doesn’t talk about U.S. election systems at all and only has superficial similarities if you don’t bother to do any actual digging into the U.S.’ electoral systems” Is not helping your vsxe
Actually, it was a massive cross section of voters ranging from the progressives and liberals to even some conservatives and people who generally have a skeptical view of government power.
Oh, don’t worry, I’ve seen the various stories about how those attempts are blowing up in their faces as parents respond in anger? Yeah they tried and the blowback is enormo
And what, pray tell, do rallies to see Trump have to do with voter turnout? But since you don’t seem to understand that, here’s a couple of articles:
Opinion | Donald Trump Turned Georgia Blue
His relentless attacks on the state’s election apparatus likely depressed Republican turnout.
www.wsj.com
GOP operatives worry Trump's claims could sabotage Georgia's runoff election
WASHINGTON (SBG) — Some Republicans worry President Donald Trump's message regarding election fraud in Georgia is undercutting his pleas for conservatives to vote for the state's two Republican senators as they work to win a brutal runoff election. Former Republican Sens.
foxbaltimore.com
Anyway, if you really think Trump is somehow going to destroy everyone who crossed him…well, we shall see, but I have my doubts. He doesn’t have Twitter to use as a megaphone, and most people are more concerned about immigration, the national debt spiraling out of control,
And, what, exactly, do you define as a RINO? Anyone who doesn’t like Trump? Because I’m pretty sure that what the average person would consider a RINO is far different from your definition, but, tell me and we shall see.
As for “ousting Trump supporters”, no, I don’t have a problem with Trump supporters per se. Rather, what I have a problem with is devotion to and worship of a human not named “Jesus Christ.” Especially when Trump himself has a long and well-known history for playing fast and loose with the truth, shady legal strategies, screwing over employees, and generally treating people like shit unless they completely kiss his ass. Seriously. This is a guy who demanded he be allowed to interview someone who applied for the job of spokesman for the Justice Department and was mad at them because they’d made some mildly critical comments about Trump’s behavior. Mind you, the person did end up getting hired, but that level of obsession when the president has a shitload of other more urgent matters to deal with suggests skewed priorities.
More importantly, what I want is to move on and find a new leader for the party who both sides can get behind to push against the Democrats and stop their drive to build an indestructible welfare state in this country, thereby bankrupting us and ensuring that we will never be able to deal with the various threats to our country effectively, thus handing the world order over to China, aided and abetted by the idiots running Russia and the EU. Trying to relitigate the past and not let go is a fool’s errand.
Trying to settle scores rather than actually win elections against a greater enemy like progressivism and socialism only makes sense of one is a vain and petty idiot. Especially when those greater threats are obsessed with actually jailing you over the slightest flimsy pretext, and your behavior only feeds into the general impression that you are too dumb to be entrusted with high political office again.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
After the Witch Hunt and sham Impeachment's, I doubt there is anything in this that will implicate Trump directly. If there was anything they could pin on Trump, they would have found it by now.
However Trump's org may be facing some problems if people in it have truly been fudging their taxes.
Airedale260
Well-known member
Well, like I said earlier, it’s basically an attempt to get the CFO to flip on Trump (much as with happened with Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn). I’m guessing the CFO either went “LOL, go fuck yourself” or “Yeah, can’t help you, because there’s nothing,” and Vance & Co didn’t believe him.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
In your case, I call you a RINO because you're obsessed with the game of politics, and your team winning it, while ignoring the reality that the opposition isn't playing by the same rules you are anymore.
Megadeath
Well-known member
I don't think that's what RINO means though, like at all? Pretty sure it's someone who identifies as Republican but effectively presents as a democrat. Surely politics would be improved if we can all accept words have meaning, rather than trying to change that definition, and if people didn't feel the need to use generic naughty word labels to tar people they disagree with politically.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
So much for a fair and impartial judge to make a ruling. Someone that biased should have recused himself.
Already dealt with this.
Nah. I don't buy that for a second.
As I said, we'll see what happens when the next vote cycle starts appearing.
A good indicator of who'll vote for for in good amounts. Biden's rallies were anaemic if I want to be generous.
Opinion | Donald Trump Turned Georgia Blue
His relentless attacks on the state’s election apparatus likely depressed Republican turnout.
GOP operatives worry Trump's claims could sabotage Georgia's runoff election
WASHINGTON (SBG) — Some Republicans worry President Donald Trump's message regarding election fraud in Georgia is undercutting his pleas for conservatives to vote for the state's two Republican senators as they work to win a brutal runoff election. Former Republican Sens.
Anyway, if you really think Trump is somehow going to destroy everyone who crossed him…well, we shall see, but I have my doubts. He doesn’t have Twitter to use as a megaphone, and most people are more concerned about immigration, the national debt spiraling out of control,
The WSJ? Seriously? I'd trust them to speak impartially on Trump as I would a Stormfront writer to speak about the Jews impartially. The second link? Oh no, that means absolutely nothing. Again, rinos exist and selective edits from a media that has near universally derided Trump for five years are not compelling sources.
Someone who claims to be a republican but sides with the democrats. Mitt Romney would be a good case in point.
Are you legitimately trying to argue that people who like Trump are a cult? Trump's biggest strength is that he can make people like him. Do you recall when he made a state of the union and he had AOC and the rest of the moral busy bodies cheering "USA! USA! USA!" Do you have the same opinion on the democrats who do the same for Fauci, Biden, Obama and Clinton?
Unfortunately for you, that leader looks to be Trump for the foreseeable future. He energised the republican base and did a far better job than Biden has done and Biden, the guy who can barely speak coherently, is humiliating the US on the world stage has single-handedly undone almost all of the good Trump did. Those jobs he brought back from car manufacturing? Already looking to go back to Mexico and other countries. Keystone pipeline, an environmentally friendly means of transporting oil across the country (and the tens of thousands of jobs it would have created) gone. Oil prices, food prices etc, gone. Illegal immigration, after promising them that if he won, he'd let them in, one of his campaign points, nah. Now they're asking them not to try crossing the boarder after the migration housing facilities were overloaded and new ones are having to be built to cope. But it's okay, mean tweets man is gone.
I don't think you quite understand the appeal of Trump, that he was willing to "settle scores" and go after the left was one of the reasons he was so well liked. The left have been engaging a culture war for decades and he seemed to be only republican willing to stand up to them and tell them to fuck off. Also, Trump was incredibly successful, people were earning more money, American companies were being forced to operate out of the US via sanctions. He tried closing ports to China near two days after the China Virus was announced as being serious. He brokered peace deals in the Middle East, Serbia/Kosovo, N. Korea and S. Korea. He tried lessening American involvement in the Middle East and get soldiers out of there. He made NATO countries actually pay their fair share. He was right about the anti-Malaria drug, he was (potentially and likely) to be correct that the China Virus was engineered in a lab. There were no Russian bounties on US soldiers. Multiple, deep probes into his history turning out to be an absolute nothingburger except for the prodigious waste of money. Him having to declare a human emergency to get proper funding for the boarder. He got Mexico to have their army defend the border. Hell, them trying to impeach him for his call to the president of the Ukraine was exactly what Biden did and nothing happened from that. The peace deals alone are monumental enough things to have happened and the latter show that he was either miraculously lucky or far more canny than people give him credit for.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Mind you, Trump still had many weaknesses as a president; for example, he never truly understood how vast the swamp actually was, nor how complicit with it the Republican establishment had been (and still is).
Airedale260
Well-known member
I see. Well, as I said, I had a suspicion your definition of RINO was quite different from the commonly understood one (i.e., someone who presents as a Republican but consistently votes like a Democrat). But apparently your definition is “Anyone who continues to play by the rules and the Constitution because their fidelity to it is stronger than to any one person.”
I’m fully aware that the Democrats are playing fast and loose with the rules. But I also know that the majority of the American public is opposed to that, and that going completely outside the rules only leads to even more harm. If a RINO is “someone who doesn’t believe in shitting all over the Constitution”, well, then yeah I guess I’m guilty.
**Blows whistle and throws yellow flag** Ad hominem attack, five-yard penalty, replay first down.
Anyway, you may be interested to know that the judge was a Trump appointee, and that he only got irked when he asked the Trump team where they disagreed with the facts of the case as argued by the Democrats’ team, (i.e., what is the basis of your case against them). Naturally the judge was quite surprised (and displeased) when the Trump team said “Actually, we don’t dispute the facts they argue, we want to argue over a couple of technicalities that are a sideshow.”
So I don’t know about you, but judges really don’t like it when someone wastes their time given their workload. And yes, that can occasionally come out in their opinions as delivered.
Not really, so I’ll ask again. What specific issues are there in U.S. elections boards’ procedures compared to other developed nations, and how do you propose they be rectified? Again, the U.S. isn’t a third world nation (hand-wringing aside). And it certainly has a more robust tradition than Gabon.
Why not? Your complaints about Big Tech, Big Media, etc, coupled with a very charged-up Democratic base, as well as the Chamber of Commerce turning against the GOP, along with a big shift in independent voters would indicate to most people that, yeah, that would do the job. Please explain why it wouldn’t.
Indeed we will. Though I would still point out that weakening your own side only helps the Democrats, so I still think it’s a terrible idea.
Actually, they’re not. They’re made-for-TV spectacles where the crowds are pre-screened to make sure only the highest-energy supporters are admitted while keeping out those who are less so, not to mention political opponents trying to sneak in and disrupt the proceedings. Not that it’s inherently wrong to do that; every politician has done it over the years and it’s been part of campaigning for who knows how long. But to use it as a measurement for voter turnout is completely useless, because rallies are a propaganda tool.
“I can’t refute these statements so I’m going to attack the sources” is not a winning argument in the eyes of the average human.
Other than the impeachment votes (which were about Trump and his behavior specifically rather than broader political issues), Romney’s been pretty consistently conservative in voting. About the only significant difference between him and Trump besides personal issues is that Romney tended to oppose Trump’s big spending plans, but that’s because big spending is generally recognized as a Democratic thing.
Someone like John McCain on the other hand, yes you could make an argument he was a RINO since he bucked the party on a number of issues. Romney…not so much.
Or, let’s look at a comparison between Liz Cheney and Elise Stefanik (and for the record, I have no issues with both and think Stefanik is a critical part of the GOP going forward). Cheney got labeled as a RINO despite the fact that she voted in line with Trump’s wishes 93% of the time, vs only 77% for Stefanik. Now, I wouldn’t consider either one a RINO unless the definition is “Anyone who refuses to kiss Trump’s ass and stroke his ego.”
I wouldn’t really say Trump can make people like him, given how his favorability ratings were generally super-low among independents. As for the cheering, I didn’t know “Trump” was spelled “U-S-A”. Though USA is spelled “U-S-A” so perhaps they were cheering for the country as a whole as opposed to one man? I take it that possibility didn’t cross your mind?
As for the messianic views of others:
Biden: I haven’t seen anyone who is actually a fan of the man himself, and that includes Delaware Democrats. He got the job as basically a compromise candidate because the candidate who did charge up the crowds was Bernie, and the average American is rightly worried that Bernie would fuck up beyond belief.
Fauci and Obama: Oh hell yes I mock the Democrats. I just don’t do it here because this isn’t a thread about that, it’s a thread about Trump specifically.
Clinton: Not sure whether you mean Bill or Hillary but if the former, I don’t see anyone who’s done that in the past 15 years, and if the latter, it’s less Clinton herself who was popular vs the idea of The First Woman President. I never saw any support I could describe as “cult like” other than rallies, which, as I said about Trump’s earlier, are specifically designed as propaganda tools.
This is probably going to shock you, so I hope you don’t have a heart attack reading this. But I agree with this part of your post. I have commented a couple of times on Biden’s various idiocies, and I am equally frustrated. I just don’t comment on this much because when four people have already said what I’m thinking in a thread, why should I comment as opposed to giving those four posters likes?
And this is why I roll my eyes whenever I get attacked for criticizing Trump, because there is such a thing as agreeing with someone while disliking them personally. Trump himself never seems to understand this, and it seems you and Terthna don’t understand that, either.
Oh, I understand Trump’s appeal, and it may shock you to know I actually was initially quite pleased with the approach he took in taking the Left head-on, as well as his efforts at outreach to minorities, and I hope other GOP candidates will follow his lead in that.
Likewise, I was (still am, actually) quite supportive of the positions on the issues you list (except the two Koreas, since nothing actually came of that. Still, points for effort). And yes, the whole impeachment stunt was just that, a stunt. But a wiser man would have known that it's a bad idea to give your opponents ammunition by just shooting your mouth off thoughtlessly, depriving them of even the ability to vote for such proceedings.
Having said all that, while one can't expect a president to do everything, a president is required to keep an eye in general on what's going on rather than just binging on cable news. This isn't the Trump Organization, where the guy at the top days "Do this" and the subordinates do it no questions asked. The federal government consists of three separate and co-equal branches, so Trump can't just say "Do this" and expect it to be done. It requires negotiating with Congress, having it vetted by lawyers to make sure it's constitutional, and if it's a controversial issue, then making such a case to the American public since he ultimately works FOR US. It's a cliche to say "public servant" but Trump is ultimately accountable to us, and that includes having to work on an equal footing.
Remember, this is a guy who complained that the job was a lot harder than he thought and got mocked (and rightly so) for it...yeah, it IS difficult because you have all these competing interests and different things you have to do, and it requires you to be actively involved. It's why Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, etc, all looked like hell when they finish their terms in office...the work required to be successful is so stressful that it visibly ages one. And while I'm sure that every president from Washington on has privately griped about it being a pain in the ass, as one of Trump's predecessors said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Trump apparently didn't believe any hard work was required (he was noted for having commented about the TVs in the Oval Office and saying all Obama did was watch college basketball all day), when it's pretty fucking clear from photos over the course of the latter's presidency that he was doing anything BUT lounging around (as an addendum, I will say I always rolled my eyes at ESPN's coverage of Obama's bracket picks for March Madness because I thought that was incredibly stupid).
Then you have the time where Trudeau made fun of Trump while they were waiting for him at a NATO-related reception for the way he did press conferences...and Trump's response was to throw a tantrum and leave the series of meetings. That's not considered acceptable behavior by normal human beings, and in political leaders it's even more unacceptable. Rather, it's the sort of immaturity one normally only sees in small children.
And in a fortuitous coincidence, National Review's Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt today discusses this in a broader piece on media insanity/misbehavior
The Media’s Warped Incentive Program | National Review
When government is boring, it is easier to avoid scrutiny.
www.nationalreview.com
So, yeah, I don't discount that Trump did some good things, and if you were to look around other threads on here, you'd see that I credit him where credit is due. But that doesn't mean I give him a free pass on the things I don't like, and foremost among them is his way of running things, which has consistently backfired because he's not very good. And I don't mean just his presidency: if you look at the various business ventures he's tried that have cratered, you see a pattern. Or his ongoing obsessions over minor things because of a perceived slight against him, as opposed to bigger issues like checking the political opposition.
Trump's pronouncements are generally treated on this thread as the gospel truth, when in reality, as with any other source, there are inherent biases on the part of the author. And as with any good analysis of a subject, one has to take those biases into account and compare and contrast them with other sources (taking their biases into account as well) to get a clear picture.
Otherwise this thread turns into a mirror universe of threads on other sites.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Yes, it's already established and I stated previously that it doesn't matter that he was appointed by Trump. Trump was far from infallible and backing wrong people is far from impossible. I think the judge is a rino and didn't give Trump a fair shake. Nothing ad hominem about that.
I really don't give a shit. This is about whether the election to one of the most powerful countries on the planet, if not the most powerful, in terms of importance, the rest of his workload can take a hike.
Already been over this and I'm not going to repeat myself.
Because they pushed, incessantly the notion of "orange man bad". For five years, again, five years they have been pushing the narrative that Trump was the second coming of Hitler, that he's evil, a fascist, a moron etc-etc. The media, big tech etc have done nothing but go into rabid hysterics about him for five years. I've repeated this enough that hopefully it'll get through to you this time.
Yes, because without hindsight, Trump would know exactly who would stab him in the back.
Did you see the same rallies I saw? Trump packed out venues. In some cases they had to move it outside because there were so many people. In Biden's rallies, you could count the attendees on one or two hands. This happened consistently.
I don't have to refute a Stormfront writer that the Holocaust doesn't happen either. Same energy my dude.
Incorrect. The first impeachment was about Trump asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Burma and Hunter Biden's position there. Inappropriate? Sure. Illegal? No. He asked a favour, not gave a command. That was what Biden did. His second impeachment was an absolute farce too. He asked for a peaceful, law abiding demonstration or march. They did not prove that so he got off and rightly so.
Your incorrect opinion on Romney is noted and ignored.
That's not my definition and you're welcome to claim it's mine as many times as you like but I will both ignore them and not care.
Yes, present some poles that were no doubt heavily skewed and doctored. Why not pull out some fact checking sites that are equally as biased.
He got the job because he's an old, increasingly senile old man that the democrats can more easily control. Do you recall the instance when Pelosi talked about how they can get Biden to do whatever want? "We do not say open sesame, we say open Biden. Open Biden. I love it." Was Sanders cheated out of his election? Probably. Cheating in election appears to be a democrat standard and Sanders would have messed up sure, his economic plan was a joke but I doubt he'd have done anywhere near as a job as Biden has done.
I'm not familiar with you, honestly, so I can't say if this is true or not but Trump is far from as bad as Fauci and Obama.
Oh come on now, since when has Bill been relevant to anything outside of that painting of him in a dress on Epstein's island. You don't think the incessant "I'm with her," or the figurines (including those of Fauci and Obama) or the comics like Female Force or when she was in a Valiant comic about a fat female hero.
That's fine, I don't care either way. Just as I doubt you care about my stance but my chief concern is that he got cheated out of an election and that he's no where near as bad as he's portrayed to be. A bit of an oaf certainly but he genuinely seems to care about the country and it's people. A damn sight more than others.
Quite probably, N. Korea, like all communist countries can't be trusted to not go back on their word but it was still an achievement and Trump managed to get N. Korea going from "Trump is a dotard," to Jung-On offering military aid (yes, I know, it's stupid) so clearly his opinion on him changed.
When Trump, as the commander in chief of the US military asked for American soldiers to return home, he was lied to about it. That's quite a different spin on things you're trying to say.
Do you mean the time he said it was a difficult job? Yeah, I can see that. I can't imagine what running a country, particularly on the scale of the US would be like. Still, he rose to the challenge and his presidency was nowhere near as bad as people have claimed it to be.
I don't really care what the bastard son of a dictator says and considering what Trudeau's government is doing, turning into a literal authoritarian regime, I definitely don't care about his opinion and why should Trump stand around to be made fun of? By an authoritarian like Trudeau of all people. Other world leaders didn't like Trump because he made them pull their own weight like when he got Germany to pay for it's fair share of NATO instead of just letting the US shoulder the burden of it. Have you seen the images of Macron scolding Biden? Can you imagine him having even the balls to say that to Trump? Trump threw his weight around and got results. Mexico protected the border (As Trump promised, Mexico would pay for the wall after a fashion).
And in a fortuitous coincidence, National Review's Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt today discusses this in a broader piece on media insanity/misbehavior
The Media’s Warped Incentive Program | National Review
When government is boring, it is easier to avoid scrutiny.
So, yeah, I don't discount that Trump did some good things, and if you were to look around other threads on here, you'd see that I credit him where credit is due. But that doesn't mean I give him a free pass on the things I don't like, and foremost among them is his way of running things, which has consistently backfired because he's not very good. And I don't mean just his presidency: if you look at the various business ventures he's tried that have cratered, you see a pattern. Or his ongoing obsessions over minor things because of a perceived slight against him, as opposed to bigger issues like checking the political opposition.
Wait, do you mean the handful of businesses that didn't succeed? Trump got a lump sum of money from his father and used that to turn himself into a billionaire. Yes, going from a millionaire on loan to a billionaire certainly paints him as a bad business man.
Wait, do you mean like some of the examples I posted previously that he's now being vindicated on?
Last edited:
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Finally.