Will Trump See Covid-19 as an Opportunity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leftus said:
For the lawmakers, they would know that anything signed by the person not duly elected wouldn't be valid.

Everyone else would likely follow the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Why would they start caring about that now? They have been holding it in contempt for years why should I expect any kind of change? He has broken plenty of laws and it doesn't matter. Why would mere law suddenly matter? The Impeachment clearly showed this rule of law crap is dead.
 
Leftus said:
And here I thought people were saying it wasn't paranoia.
Click to expand...

Leftus said:
My apologies for not bending facts to your delusions. Feel free to go back to sleep. Sorry for trying to insert reality into your dreams.
Click to expand...


When there have already been bomb attacks from Trump supporters, the only delusional ones are people like you, denying the potential for more violence.

You'd make a good poster boy for the power of willful ignorance.
 
Leftus said:
Of course not. They aren't the bad guys.
Click to expand...


Oh, you're not only guilty of delusion and denial, you decided to throw a straw man argument at me, to boot.

Again, wake me up once you learn how to debate without invoking fallacy after fallacy. :rolleyes:
 
Cabbage said:
I'm concerned over any terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I'm asking about concern over potential future attacks, not actual past attacks. Are you concerned that there's a significant potential from Bernie Bros, or only from Trumpsters? One can be concerned over "any terrorist attacks" but still think that a group poses no real risk of such attacks.

For example, I'm not in the least bit concerned about possible terrorist attacks from Shriners. You have stated that you think Trumpsters pose a risk significant enough to worry about. Do you think Bernie Bros pose a risk significant enough to worry about?
 
Leftus said:
I'm asking why they care about something they say won't have an impact. How is that not part of a discussion?
Click to expand...

I wasn't contesting it's part of the conversation. You're saying it's conversation we shouldn't have because it just won't come to be. I don't understand why you're here then.

Ziggurat said:
I've given factual reasons. But you don't want to hear them. You want your paranoid delusions. And you think those delusions are "factual".

Trump has broken so, so many minds.
Click to expand...

Another thinly veiled insult aside, you haven't given a factual anything. You've made a repeated claim that is nothing more than "nuh uh". That's it. You've provided nothing other than your own speculation.
 
Ziggurat said:
That doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I'm asking about concern over potential future attacks, not actual past attacks.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the potential of Trump not leaving office and ya'll said it couldn't happen. Why the change of heart?

Ziggurat said:
Are you concerned that there's a significant potential from Bernie Bros, or only from Trumpsters? One can be concerned over "any terrorist attacks" but still think that a group poses no real risk of such attacks.
Click to expand...

Of those two groups, which has a history of physical violence and terrorist style shootings? Which one of those groups has quoted their person of choice before murdering people?

Ziggurat said:
For example, I'm not in the least bit concerned about possible terrorist attacks from Shriners. You have stated that you think Trumpsters pose a risk significant enough to worry about. Do you think Bernie Bros pose a risk significant enough to worry about?
Click to expand...

I don't know about him, but I don't. Then again, I haven't heard Bernie encourage his supporters to riot if he doesn't win like Trump did in 2016.
 
Ziggurat said:
That doesn't actually answer the question I asked. I'm asking about concern over potential future attacks, not actual past attacks. Are you concerned that there's a significant potential from Bernie Bros, or only from Trumpsters? One can be concerned over "any terrorist attacks" but still think that a group poses no real risk of such attacks.

For example, I'm not in the least bit concerned about possible terrorist attacks from Shriners. You have stated that you think Trumpsters pose a risk significant enough to worry about. Do you think Bernie Bros pose a risk significant enough to worry about?
Click to expand...



My turn now:

Do you honestly think the risk of terrorist attacks from Trump supporters (assuming Trump loses 2020) is so small as to be nonexistent?

Do you have evidence of Sanders rallying his supporters to violence (like Trump has)?
 
At Trump's WH conference (the first use of the briefing room in very nearly a year!!), his response to a question about his gutting of the CDC was to the effect of not liking having thousands of people on the payroll when not needed. And then following that with knowing all the good people that could be hired when needed.

So he approaches national preparedness as an element of the gig economy? He expects experts to remain current in their fields while sitting at home, awaiting the Leader's call to action at a moment's notice? Then to be sent back into cold storage when the crisis is over?
 
That is what he sees everyone as. Just tools for his own use/amusement to be set aside when not needed.
 
Cabbage said:
My turn now:

Do you honestly think the risk of terrorist attacks from Trump supporters (assuming Trump loses 2020) is so small as to be nonexistent?

Do you have evidence of Sanders rallying his supporters to violence (like Trump has)?
Click to expand...

I think terrorist attacks from antifa if Trump wins reelection are more likely than terrorist attacks from Trump supporters if he doesn't. Whether either of those risks is so small as to be nonexistent I'll let you decide for yourself.
 
theprestige said:
I think terrorist attacks from antifa if Trump wins reelection are more likely than terrorist attacks from Trump supporters if he doesn't. Whether either of those risks is so small as to be nonexistent I'll let you decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

The people that haven't sent bombs, run over\killed other people, and punched people in the head at rallies are MORE likely to be violent than those that have done it? Did Antifa do that the first time?

That's an interesting take I'll give you that.
 
Last edited:
Leftus said:
If he is not successful, why the concern? What if he does something that doesn't matter? Not sure why we should care. What if, after the election he goes and gets a hair cut and a beer? Gnashing of teeth; rending of garments?
Click to expand...

Trump encourages and condones violence among his supporters who swallow every bit of propaganda he feeds them.

Perhaps you can connect the dots and see how that might be a problem if Trump loses the election and decides he doesn’t want to leave office.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Another thinly veiled insult aside, you haven't given a factual anything. You've made a repeated claim that is nothing more than "nuh uh". That's it. You've provided nothing other than your own speculation.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony. The entire premise of this thread is nothing other than speculation.
 
plague311 said:
The people that haven't sent bombs, run over\killed other people, and punched people in the head at rallies are MORE likely to be violent than those that have done it? Did Antifa do that the first time?

That's an interesting take I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

Some might call it "far-fetched" or "paranoia" or perhaps that a person believing it is suffering from "mental illness".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom