User

LOL... yeah, that is how we look at trends. We look at them beyond only the one good week you want to look at.

You started this discussion regarding your characterization of why they voted the way they did. It is not a distraction to point out that their reasoning is not what you assert it to be by offering not only a plausible alternative but the actual alternative as stated by many of them and supported by their past actions and comments. What is this "lying buffoon idol" you are accusing me of having? I started posting here this week and somehow you think you already know me enough to make such outlandish claims? Give me a break.

Speaking of reason and integrity... you continue to ignore my comments and arguments and just keep making the same assertion repeatedly. The same folks who voted no also believe there is a solemn commitment to the United States own security, our own border, and this is our own national security at stake. That is not my playing anything... that is my directly responding to the claims you are making here giving you a valid reason for why many of those Republicans were no votes. My intelligence and integrity are fully intact here.

I see. So pursuing specious legal theories that are found not to be legal... is an attempt to seize power and a coup! I look forward to our finally locking Al Gore up for his unconstitutional (illegal) attempts to overturn the 2000 election. His conspiracy to defraud the United States went unpunished. So again... why isn't Trump being charged with something that serious if it was so obvious? Biden knew what he was doing with Student Loans was not Constitutional and he did it anyway... Obama knew what he was doing with DACA was not Constitutional and he did it anyway... on and on and on...

No, your paragraph of irrelevant rhetorical questions regarding Ukraine was just that. Our discussion was not on the merits of supporting Ukraine or not, it was on your absurdly wrong characterization of all Republicans who did not vote for the latest round of funding. I have already responded to your "what has changed" comment before, which you clearly ignored: "What changed is that Biden has allowed our own border to become even more of a crisis than it has ever been. As I already pointed out, Republicans want to see change there and the notion that we can provide 100 Billion in Aid to other countries to fight their wars and protect their borders does not sit well with many Republicans when we can't do anything to improve our own border problems. "

You think it is minimizing something awful to point out that not everyone is bad? No, that is an honest statement. Bidens was just as bad for similar reasoning, not exactly the same. It's a form of whataboutism, that instead of simply focusing on the current bad thing, condemning it, nope, he had to say, yeah, they are bad... but so are the other guys too! That is just as minimizing, if not more. Trump has never been an eloquent speaker even when he isn't being his usual circus clown self. I think those on the left go out of their way to presume the worst if not outright lie and distort the things he has said. You think he is trying to empower and normalize, when it is most likely he is just not smart when speaking off the cuff. After making less than intelligent comments, he does come out and clarify his remarks. It is not like he made that gaffe on the Proud Boy's stand back and stand by and never said anything ever again. No, Trump came out that same week and clearly condemned them and White Supremacists.

Let's be really clear: there is a huge difference between Russia's and NATO's expansion. It is not all just the same expansion, as if they are morally, ethically, or technically the same thing. No, you want to let Russia win and Ukraine lose, that is not the inevitable outcome at all with ours and other NATO countries support. The front lines have been stagnant for over the better part of a year now. Russia is making no real gains and is just throwing its men and equipment into the meat grinder. Their only hope of winning is to wait us out and hope we bail on Ukraine.

No, you can't say the same, at least not with any validity. I have no interest in playing your 1,000 rhetorical questions game now that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. We were not arguing the merits of aid to Ukraine, but your characterizations of Republicans in Congress for why they did not support the aid. So, what are you rambling on about now as if we were discussing the merits of supporting Ukraine in general? Are you not able to stay focused?

Talk about being disingenuous with the use of "expand" Let's be clearer since you are going to play games. By "expand," we are talking about using force or other nefarious means to conquer and control, not that a country voluntarily joins an alliance for the mutual benefit of protection and maintains its independence otherwise. No, Russia is making this a bad situation... your idea of a solution is to just let them win and the entire point of our aid is to support Ukraine so that Russia doesn't just win.

Of course it is our business and even more of NATO's. The entire point behind NATO was forming a strategic alliance in opposition to the expansion from the Soviet Union and that threat did not die with its collapse... because here is Russia still expanding. There is also some convoluted history to our support of Ukraine when they gained their independence from the Soviet Union. They took a lot of Nuclear weapons with them and voluntarily disarmed in coordination and agreement with Western nations. The US has an interest in promoting peace and stability in the world to some extent, including opposing continued Russian aggression.

It is going to be wild to see Trump get elected and then pardon himself from all Federal charges that are ongoing...

Who are you talking to? You don't answer my questions and then accuse me of wanting to pretend something I have never said here. You completely ignored my response. The way that the House and Senate function, their power dynamics, and internal politics doesn't change that there is a general party position on things, but even then, party politics is not some monolithic block where all Republicans are mindless robots locked in on what the party in general has said. Republicans, just like Democrats and other politicians, all have a wide array of views on any number of issues and how they may impact their local districts. Seriously, are you American? You do not seem to grasp the nuances of party politics or how Congress functions.

I do not wish to presume anything here, but are you American? This is not meant to be insulting, but you don't seem to understand the nuances of our Congress. It is divided into the Senate and the House. Senators are elected every 6 years, 2 from each state. Representatives in the House every 2 years and are proportional to their States populations. Basically, yes, they are different Republicans. The Senate has historically been much more stalwart and have completely different internal political negotiations and power dynamics than those that go on in the House. So again... where do you get that the House reneged on anything? What changed is that Biden has allowed our own border to become even more of a crisis than it has ever been. As I already pointed out, Republicans want to see change there and the notion that we can provide 100 Billion in Aid to other countries to fight their wars and protect their borders does not sit well with many Republicans when we can't do anything to improve our own border problems.

Where did the Republicans in the House ever agree to the Border Security Bill in the Senate? It was well known before Trump ever opened his mouth that whatever the Senate compromise produced was almost certainly going to be garbage most in the House would oppose. You are ignoring this context and merely saying "Republican" as if it is some monolithic block. The idea that politicians of either party will protect the party and be... politicians is not unique to the Republicans. You need look no farther than how Democrats sycophantly support Biden and pretend like we can't all obviously see he is too old and not all there anymore or that they don't cheer on authoritarianism when it suits them *cough* Student loans... The only fantasy world here is the one where you act like this is just Republicans or something unique now.

Are you OK?

I don't know who you are talking to, you completely ignored my question. I didn't say anything about JFK or Nixon, nor did I ask you about that part of your comment. You said: "you Americans now want war." I asked: "What do you mean, Americans want war? War in Ukraine? Somewhere else? Just in general? "

What do you mean, Americans want war? War in Ukraine? Somewhere else? Just in general?

No, it certainly is not a coup. For it being so certain, with all the different court cases against Trump, you might think one of them might be regarding a coup. I guess it is not so certain after all. The best Jack smith could come up with is a real contortion of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Big eye roll there. Trump "conspired" to defraud the United States in as much as Al Gore did. And he didn't pressure Pence to appoint him President. The Vice President doesn't even have that power. Eastman drafted up a pretty convoluted memo for a chain of events to take place that would never have worked, even if Pence went along with it.

You repeatedly prove to not be very informed on things and then play this game with me acting like what I said isn't true, when you can easily verify it. Why not just ask me for the link or something instead of acting like it is just a story with no evidence? Biden appointed Garland, and Garland reports to him. This kind of political abuse of the DOJ to target certain groups and drag up old cases doesn't happen because Garland woke up one day with an itch. The short experience you have had with me should show you that I always have the receipts. Pro-Life Activist Arrested by FBI Acquitted on Federal Charges https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pro-life-activist-arrested-by-fbi-acquitted-on-federal-charges/ "The FBI arrested Houck in front of his family at his home last September. At the time, an attorney for Houck accused the DOJ of targeting the pro-life activist “solely to intimidate people of faith and pro-life Americans.” “Rather than accepting Mark Houck’s offer to appear voluntarily, the Biden Department of Justice chose to make an unnecessary show of potentially deadly force, sending twenty heavily armed federal agents to the Houck residence at dawn this past Friday,” said the attorney representing Houck, Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Peter Breen."

How is that selling out the nation? You continue to have a real problem with repeating your same assertions as if that somehow makes them true or provides any explanation. Trump is a businessman. He was pursuing an opportunity in Russia before he ran for President and even said why he should lose out on a deal if he might lose. Once he secured the nomination, his focus was on winning the Presidency. There was never any conflict of interest, and nothing happened. I am not interested in changing the subject to your biased interpretation for how the Emoluments Clause works. No, I did not read absolutism into anything, as I have repeatedly questioned you to be sure of what you are doing, because you play games otherwise... just as you are doing right now.

Reasonable people also understand that when Trump said there were good people on both sides, there can, in fact, be good people on both sides, and not that Trump was saying that all the people were good, including the Nazis The point here was that if we are going to "Both sides" Trump, Biden just "Both sided" this as well.

I did not question your source. I have no interest in folks who post a link without adding commentary about what they want to share specifically from it. I am here discussing this with you, and you have already proven you will balk at someone thinking you believe something you shared and play games. So... if there was something specific you wanted to point out, lets see it.

No, you offered a surface-level assertion, no real explanation of anything. You can keep on thinking Trump can declare himself King of England and make it so if you want to. Facts, logic, and reason say it is a whole lot more complicated than that.

I'm not interested in the check this link out game. If you have any, give me your #1 best and most compelling piece of evidence here. You might start with where Trump planned an "insurrection," let alone implemented one.

I am no fan of the weaponization of the Justice system against Trump... but some of this is his own doing. The guy was hanging on to classified documents and refusing to cooperate. That aside, none of this has anything to do with his being a circus clown with how he acts and the things he says.