• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The Trump Presidency (XXX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What baffles me is, can you imagine a former president expressing themselves this way? Can you imagine anyone expressing themselves this way?

[IMGW=500]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1457&pictureid=13349[/IMGW]

Steve Bannon called trump a "stick of dynamite." Tucker Carlson called him the "undisputed world champion" for "destroying things." Those are some wonderful endorsements. :(

Donald Trump speaks with the unfiltered directness that a significant proportion of the US Electorate seem to admire (and perhaps wish that they could do so but have to instead play nice). Once again, he is just a symptom of a prevailing opinion of a significant chunk of people. :(
 
"Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfie

There was an article in The Atlantic today (which you mar or may not be able to read) in which Tom Nichols writes "It is long past time to admit that support for Trump, after all that we now know, is a moral failing.".
That logic will be meaningless to those in the maga camp whose primary concern is 'sticking it to the Dems' though.

I've always wondered how the evangelical christians remain attached to him despite all of his foul behaviour. I used to see explanations like "nobody is perfect and he is seeking redemption", but only the wilfully blind can possible still believe that. It's been previously mentioned in these trump threads that the most likely explanation is that they just aren't exposed to most of it. Maybe the apparent schism between Fox and Toad will bring a little more of that information to their attention.
 
I'm convinced that today's American Christians would champion Satan himself if he promised to stick it to their enemies.
 
" how the evangelical christians remain attached to him despite all of his foul behaviour."

Babies. Trump has saved millions of babies by now!
 
Thanks. As it's likely coming from inside the US and pro-Trump, the source is most likely right-wing.


I found this part interesting:



Since these bots are likely being created by a pro-Trump right-wing source, I can infer that they are more than a bit worried about Trump not appearing as popular as he was before. If Republicans believe that, they may be more inclined to vote for someone else like DeSantis.

Or Russia. The other GoP candidates appear to support Ukraine.
 
I've always wondered how the evangelical christians remain attached to him despite all of his foul behaviour. I used to see explanations like "nobody is perfect and he is seeking redemption", but only the wilfully blind can possible still believe that. It's been previously mentioned in these trump threads that the most likely explanation is that they just aren't exposed to most of it. Maybe the apparent schism between Fox and Toad will bring a little more of that information to their attention.


I don't know if it's still happening, but I remember seeing people drawing parallels between Trump and King Cyrus of Persia, a nonbeliever whom God uses as a tool for the benefit of His chosen people.
 
Or Russia. The other GoP candidates appear to support Ukraine.

The article said the source was likely inside the US, so I doubt this particular bot factory is in Russia. But I don't doubt Russia also has its own factory in high gear.
 
"Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfie

There was an article in The Atlantic today (which you mar or may not be able to read) in which Tom Nichols writes "It is long past time to admit that support for Trump, after all that we now know, is a moral failing.".
That logic will be meaningless to those in the maga camp whose primary concern is 'sticking it to the Dems' though.

I've always wondered how the evangelical christians remain attached to him despite all of his foul behaviour. I used to see explanations like "nobody is perfect and he is seeking redemption", but only the wilfully blind can possible still believe that. It's been previously mentioned in these trump threads that the most likely explanation is that they just aren't exposed to most of it. Maybe the apparent schism between Fox and Toad will bring a little more of that information to their attention.

I agree with the first part: most of the Maga idiots live in a pro-Trump bubble watching OAN, Newsmax, and Fox. They listen to right-wing radio and live on right-wing websites, including Trump's.

Considering last night's revisionist history that Tucker Carlson put out last night, I think your last sentence is going to happen.

Take a look:

 
The article said the source was likely inside the US, so I doubt this particular bot factory is in Russia. But I don't doubt Russia also has its own factory in high gear.
Weren't the 2016 'farms' predominantly out of Macedonia?
Or was that more generalized bot/troll business and I'm misremembering?
 
I agree with the first part: most of the Maga idiots live in a pro-Trump bubble watching OAN, Newsmax, and Fox. They listen to right-wing radio and live on right-wing websites, including Trump's.

Considering last night's revisionist history that Tucker Carlson put out last night, I think your last sentence is going to happen.

Take a look:


Ah, that explains this political cartoon that someone just posted on another forum.

picture.php
 
Ah, that explains this political cartoon that someone just posted on another forum.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1450&pictureid=13350[/qimg]

I thought this deserved its own thread so I started one.
 
" how the evangelical christians remain attached to him despite all of his foul behaviour."

Babies. Trump has saved millions of babies by now!

In the eyes o fthe Anti Evagelicals, that is the exact truth.
 
In Trump's CPAC speech, it's easy for his opponents to focus on the hateful-sounding stuff and the fact that he's somehow learned the word "retribution", but those aren't the most important things in there to me. The most important parts are when he talked about more mundane policy issues, not . Economics? Too many people are too poor and we need to change things to fix that. (He even brought back the "I am your voice" line from a previous campaign.) War? We should have less.

Other Republicans don't talk like that. Almost no Democrats talk like that. It's been quite a while since even he talked like that. The last time was... when he won. Whatever his problems are in many other ways, he is more aware of and motivated to play into what the people want than most other politicians.
 
Last edited:
In Trump's CPAC speech, it's easy for his opponents to focus on the hateful-sounding stuff and the fact that he's somehow learned the word "retribution", but those aren't the most important things in there to me. The most important parts are when he talked about more mundane policy issues, not . Economics? Too many people are too poor and we need to change things to fix that. (He even brought back the "I am your voice" line from a previous campaign.) War? We should have less.

Other Republicans don't talk like that. Almost no Democrats talk like that. It's been quite a while since even he talked like that. The last time was... when he won. Whatever his problems are in many other ways, he is more aware of and motivated to play into what the people want than most other politicians.
He doesn't write this stuff. He can barely twiddle a Sharpie to sign his name without getting a cramp then wandering off in the wrong direction. He has MUCH smarter people write stuff for him. And I'm sure he doesn't know what they have written until he comes to read it...and to go off-script during that reading.

And his speech-writers are more than smart enough to discern what will "play well" with his audience. They do the research and editing. And they will have picked the subjects and how to play them along. Not Trump. He would have no idea what time of day it was.
 
Then why don't others, or at least other Republicans, get the same benefit from the same speech-writers?
 
In Trump's CPAC speech, it's easy for his opponents to focus on the hateful-sounding stuff and the fact that he's somehow learned the word "retribution", but those aren't the most important things in there to me. The most important parts are when he talked about more mundane policy issues, not . Economics? Too many people are too poor and we need to change things to fix that. (He even brought back the "I am your voice" line from a previous campaign.) War? We should have less.

Other Republicans don't talk like that. Almost no Democrats talk like that. It's been quite a while since even he talked like that. The last time was... when he won. Whatever his problems are in many other ways, he is more aware of and motivated to play into what the people want than most other politicians.

The one thing he does understand is that his base is largely made up of very simple-minded, low-information, poorly educated rubes. He knows how to talk their language because he's about as intellectual as Homer Simpson. Like is always attracted to like.
 
Then why don't others, or at least other Republicans, get the same benefit from the same speech-writers?

I don't subscribe to Norman A's theory that Trump writes none of his own tweets or speeches. Trump thinks he's smarter than everyone else and no one knows how to write better than he does.
 
Then why don't others, or at least other Republicans, get the same benefit from the same speech-writers?
They're not God/Trump. Donny's speech-writers work for HIM, not other people. They are HIS minions. The NDA's are for Donny, not anybody else.

Besides, Donny NEVER lends his support to anyone else. It's all about him and what's in it for him, all the time.
 
I don't subscribe to Norman A's theory that Trump writes none of his own tweets or speeches. Trump thinks he's smarter than everyone else and no one knows how to write better than he does.
The highlighted part is true - agreed. He is utterly full of his own importance and brilliance, and his ego. He is "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular" equivalent for the USA.

But that doesn't mean therefore that he writes his own tweets and speeches. You can tell when he comes to speak them - he gets surprised by what they say and goes off-topic when it confuses him. As soon as he does that, which is often, you know it was NOT a speech he wrote.
 
The highlighted part is true - agreed. He is utterly full of his own importance and brilliance, and his ego. He is "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular" equivalent for the USA.

But that doesn't mean therefore that he writes his own tweets and speeches. You can tell when he comes to speak them - he gets surprised by what they say and goes off-topic when it confuses him. As soon as he does that, which is often, you know it was NOT a speech he wrote.

I don't think he writes ALL his tweets and speeches, but that's a far cry from claiming he doesn't write any of them. I think it's fairly obvious which is which. I think the vast majority of his tweets come straight from his own pudgy little fingers. The speeches...again, fairly obvious when he strays from his monotone 'just reading words' presentation of the prepared speech and goes off on his side rants. His entire presentation changes.
 
When X has Y write a speech, why would X not have Y write what X wants? And if they don't, then how do different politicians with speech writers end up with speeches which sound different from each other?
 
The one thing he does understand is that his base is largely made up of very simple-minded, low-information, poorly educated rubes. He knows how to talk their language because he's about as intellectual as Homer Simpson. Like is always attracted to like.

But despite being not very bright, Homer Simpson has a good heart. Can't say that about Donnie.
 
When X has Y write a speech, why would X not have Y write what X wants?
That's not the only option. For example, if X is the racist, stupid, fascist but popular face of the outfit and Y is the cunning brains, Y might craft something that sounds like what X likes but says what Y wants.

And if they don't, then how do different politicians with speech writers end up with speeches which sound different from each other?
Umm...because they are different speechwriters?? And different politicians?? With different agendas?? Is this too hard?
 
I don't think he writes ALL his tweets and speeches, but that's a far cry from claiming he doesn't write any of them. I think it's fairly obvious which is which. I think the vast majority of his tweets come straight from his own pudgy little fingers.
Previously, that could have been the case. Nowadays, I'm willing to bet most of Trump's written output including tweets is vetted by his team. Given what we have seen from him so far including pussy-grabbing, and knowing the sort of crass vindictive scumbag he really is with everyone, I can only imagine what his tweets said BEFORE they were "corrected". Can you imagine if his spoken output was tweeted uncensored? Every second word would be an F-bomb, and just about every other a C-bomb. How would that play with the evangelicals! What do you think the original tweet about George Conway actually started as? :eye-poppi

The speeches...again, fairly obvious when he strays from his monotone 'just reading words' presentation of the prepared speech and goes off on his side rants. His entire presentation changes.
He goes on the side rants BECAUSE he has never seen the speech before. He is only just realising what it says, and without even thinking (i.e. as usual), does his best to sabotage what the speech-writers had crafted to play as they wanted by going off-script. He must be the most dreadful client to speech-write for...
 
In Trump's CPAC speech, it's easy for his opponents to focus on the hateful-sounding stuff and the fact that he's somehow learned the word "retribution", but those aren't the most important things in there to me. The most important parts are when he talked about more mundane policy issues, not . Economics? Too many people are too poor and we need to change things to fix that. (He even brought back the "I am your voice" line from a previous campaign.) War? We should have less.

Other Republicans don't talk like that. Almost no Democrats talk like that. It's been quite a while since even he talked like that. The last time was... when he won. Whatever his problems are in many other ways, he is more aware of and motivated to play into what the people want than most other politicians.

Just to be clear, you think that "almost" no Democrats have talked about economic inequality in the US? Like, Biden didn't campaign on that, and isn't still routinely pointing out (for instance) the record profits the oil industry is raking in while hurting average Americans? Or Pelosi wasn't creating a whole United States House Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth to address it?

One has to wonder where you get your news from, and why they hide so much from you.
 
Read kind of a downer article about the failure to bring Trump to justice for his crimes:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-country-is-paying-for-garlands-timidity-toward-trump/

It basically argues that by now it's too late to get Trump on any serious charges. He's running for President, and the GOP-SCOTUS won't allow him to serve time in prison as long as he's a vote-getter for the GOP. It further argues that AG Merrick Garland knows this, and all but accuses him of deliberately letting Trump off the hook.
 
Nixon never got convicted of anything, and yet his name lives on in infamy.

No efforts should be spared to bring all the crimes of the Trump presidency to light, even if they won't lead to him ending up in jail.
 
Read kind of a downer article about the failure to bring Trump to justice for his crimes:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-country-is-paying-for-garlands-timidity-toward-trump/

It basically argues that by now it's too late to get Trump on any serious charges. He's running for President, and the GOP-SCOTUS won't allow him to serve time in prison as long as he's a vote-getter for the GOP. It further argues that AG Merrick Garland knows this, and all but accuses him of deliberately letting Trump off the hook.

I disagree.
 
Just to be clear, you think that "almost" no Democrats have talked about economic inequality in the US? Like, Biden didn't campaign on that, and isn't still routinely pointing out (for instance) the record profits the oil industry is raking in while hurting average Americans? Or Pelosi wasn't creating a whole United States House Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth to address it?



One has to wonder where you get your news from, and why they hide so much from you.
Here's what goes on with that. The rural white population hears Democrats talk about economic inequality. Then as soon as someone brings up how much harder the problem hits minorities, they immediately tune out and assume Democrats only want to do things for black people in order to buy their vote, and that their own needs will be ignored. They're ripe for being told Republicans can help them by keeping out illegal immigrants and getting lazy people off welfare and ending affirmative action and all things woke.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Look at the source. The Nation has been highly critical of the BIden adminstration form day one because it is not far enough to the left for them.
I get the impression they are bunch of still angry Berniebros.
They artical also ignore that the feds are not the only ones that can indict Trump.
 
Look at the source. The Nation has been highly critical of the BIden adminstration form day one because it is not far enough to the left for them.
.....
.

You don't have to be far-left to believe Merrick Garland has been dragging his heels, for which he has been widely criticized. Jan. 6 was more than two years ago, and the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.
https://www.vox.com/2021/7/29/22594393/merrick-garland-trump-prosecutions-justice-department
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-indictment-justice-department-in-a-quandary/
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-garland-justice-trump-investigation-00045502
 
Last edited:
You don't have to be far-left to believe Merrick Garland has been dragging his heels, for which he has been widely criticized. Jan. 6 was more than two years ago, and the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.
https://www.vox.com/2021/7/29/22594393/merrick-garland-trump-prosecutions-justice-department
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-indictment-justice-department-in-a-quandary/
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-garland-justice-trump-investigation-00045502

Maybe to you, maybe not to a lawyer.
And I can understant being cautious. You do not want to make thiws look like a political vendetta. he needs every legal t crossed and I dotted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom