Vikek and Truth or Consequences

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Why can't they find the basic courage to denounce Trump for trying that scheme?

Easy. He commands respect within his base. This isn't just 20 000 people.

As a politician, you cannot afford to lose votes in the millions.

Trump can crush opposition in the snap of a finger.

Same reason Ramaswamy is tough on most subjects, except Trump. 

He has shown the loyalty Trump demands, so he is allowed to breathe. 

Scold Trump or publicly flog him, and he uses his immense influence, to crush you. Republicans are petrified of this.

Those that aren't, aren't in the slightest relevant in their party, or are using his name to build clout for for themselves like Chris Christie. Voters see through this, as showcased by his numbers.

Who else could post a picture of a mugshot and get an instant 7 million plus of donor dollars injected into their campaign?

Ignoring Trumps power, is a fatal mistake.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Easy. He commands respect within his base. This isn't just 20 000 people.

As a politician, you cannot afford to lose votes in the millions.

Trump can crush opposition in the snap of a finger.

Same reason Ramaswamy is tough on most subjects, except Trump. 

He has shown the loyalty Trump demands, so he is allowed to breathe. 

Scold Trump or publicly flog him, and he uses his immense influence, to crush you. Republicans are petrified of this.

Those that aren't, aren't in the slightest relevant in their party, or are using his name to build clout for for themselves like Chris Christie. Voters see through this, as showcased by his numbers.

Who else could post a picture of a mugshot and get an instant 7 million plus of donor dollars injected into their campaign?

Ignoring Trumps power, is a fatal mistake.

None of this means squat to Libbies. They've been told to be "morally outraged" and they are..."morally outraged".

Yet the success of the Trump years was both obvious and monumental. People want that back and know very few people have the ability to make that happen.

There is nothing more dangerous to the status quo, than a person in power who opposes boldly...the status quo.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Easy. He commands respect within his base. This isn't just 20 000 people.

As a politician, you cannot afford to lose votes in the millions.

Trump can crush opposition in the snap of a finger.

Same reason Ramaswamy is tough on most subjects, except Trump. 

He has shown the loyalty Trump demands, so he is allowed to breathe. 

Scold Trump or publicly flog him, and he uses his immense influence, to crush you. Republicans are petrified of this.

Those that aren't, aren't in the slightest relevant in their party, or are using his name to build clout for for themselves like Chris Christie. Voters see through this, as showcased by his numbers.

Who else could post a picture of a mugshot and get an instant 7 million plus of donor dollars injected into their campaign?

Ignoring Trumps power, is a fatal mistake.

Of course, I realize the individual jeopardy. That's why I think they need to show some solidarity to move the party platform and perspective beyond one man. The cult of personality just isn't a viable strategy to govern, and it's also not likely to win, based on past results. And frankly it would be worse for Republicans if Trump does win. That'll be the end of the old Republican party and, potentially the republic. If there was ever a time to fix what's broken and actually lead, this is it.

One at a time won't do. They'll be tarred as traitors and RINOs. But they could stand up to him together and say that what he's done is not affordable in the Republican party. That Mike Pence is not a traitor. Etc.

They tried to take Trump on one at a time in the last primary. And we saw how that turned out. 

[robosmith]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:59 PM, Nationalist said:

I was speaking of Trudeau but...guess you didn't get it.

No, I got it. The link is a search for indictments in CANADA (which you claimed you don't do) of which there is 102,000 hits.

Why would Trudeau be indicted when there's no evidence of him committing ANY crimes like Trump did?

Edited August 28, 2023 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No, I got it. The link is a search for indictments in CANADA (which you claimed you don't do) of which there is 102,000 hits.

Why would Trudeau be indicted when there's no evidence of him committing ANY crimes like Trump did?

Actually there was/is lots of evidence. The SNC Lavalin thing was sick. Pure cover-up.

[impartialobserver]

Vivek has high ideals but will be forgotten by this time next year. To defeat Trump.. one has to have a big personality and therefore a bit irrational. The confidence it takes to be brash and outspoken mostly comes from a lack of intellect. So in short.. Trump will be the lead topic yet again. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Actually there was/is lots of evidence. The SNC Lavalin thing was sick. Pure cover-up.

RCMP says otherwise.

Quote

“As part of that review the RCMP spoke with and collected information from a variety of sources, and examined the matter in the most thorough, objective and professional manner,” the force said.

“After a comprehensive and impartial assessment of all available information, the RCMP determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded.”

But I guess IT guy Gnat man knows more about legal evidence. LMAO

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

RCMP says otherwise.

But I guess IT guy Gnat man knows more about legal evidence. LMAO

I guess so. Apparently so does Canada's ethics commissioner.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

No, I got it. The link is a search for indictments in CANADA (which you claimed you don't do) of which there is 102,000 hits.

Why would Trudeau be indicted when there's no evidence of him committing ANY crimes like Trump did?

There is evidence - in fact he admitted to it. The RCMP claims they didn't prosecute because it was not clear to them if the prime minister could give himself permission to break the law (there's a line in the law that might allow for that possibly).

 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Vivek has high ideals but will be forgotten by this time next year. To defeat Trump.. one has to have a big personality and therefore a bit irrational. The confidence it takes to be brash and outspoken mostly comes from a lack of intellect. So in short.. Trump will be the lead topic yet again. 

Probably.

But let's assume Trump is actually kept from running. Now who wins? DeSantis? Isn't he "the backstop"?

[myata]

Trampism is corroding Republican party from inside. Unthinkable can be said aloud now and look: nothing; no lightnings and the sky isn't falling. He's saying he will trade territories of other, independent countries for political ends. To give or withhold NATO membership on a whim, like it's some sort of a candy box, no principles. Like WWII never happened. And back in time almost a century. But why not? Anything can be said now. Who's listening and thinking?

Sure: this is how democracy ends. Yes, people can get tired of democracy, the duty to think and act and try something else. Romans did, and so many since.

[impartialobserver]

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Probably.

But let's assume Trump is actually kept from running. Now who wins? DeSantis? Isn't he "the backstop"?

If Trump is barred from running.. then DeSantis is the likely alternative. If not him then Nikki Haley. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Trampism is corroding Republican party from inside. Unthinkable can be said aloud now and look: nothing; no lightnings and the sky isn't falling. He's saying he will trade territories of other, independent countries for political ends. To give or withhold NATO membership on a whim, like it's some sort of a candy box, no principles. Like WWII never happened. And back in time almost a century. But why not? Anything can be said now. Who's listening and thinking?

Sure: this is how democracy ends. Yes, people can get tired of democracy, the duty to think and act and try something else. Romans did, and so many since.

" I DON"T LIKE WHO THE PEOPLE PICKED AS A LEADER SO THAT"S THE END OF DEMOCRACY"

Sigh.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

If Trump is barred from running.. then DeSantis is the likely alternative. If not him then Nikki Haley. 

I take the post to mean 'what if trump couldnt' run' - but honestly if he really was barred i would say it would depend on how and why that happened.  Depending on the scenario people might flock to the 'most trump-iest alternative' which would probalby be desantis or they might go the opposite way, and then it might be someone else

If we just say 'he can't run' then probably desantis i would guess.

[myata]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh.

An average two-year old cannot read. That's normal, don't worry.

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

An average two-year old cannot read. That's normal, don't worry.

I know - i always assumed you got a parent to read the replies for you or something,

(Fun fact - I could read at two. Hang in there big guy, you'll get it eventually!  )

[BeaverFever]

The “I would simply ...” candidate

Vivek Ramaswamy says he would simply just solve America’s tough problems.
 

…

While not endorsing Trump’s specific claim that the 2020 election was stolen — a claim that Ramaswamy, before launching his campaign, wrote was “weak” and not “grounded in fact” — he nevertheless said that Pence should have somehow forced Democrats to agree to a sweeping national overhaul of election rules as a prerequisite for letting Biden’s win go forward.

On the website formerly known as Twitter, there’s long been a running joke where the tweeter claims “I would simply” do something that is actually extremely difficult. (“If i ever fell in some quicksand i would simply thrash around until i was out. it’s that simple,” was the first version.) Vivek Ramaswamy is the “I would simply ...” candidate in the 2024 race. Our nation’s most challenging issues? Well, he’d simply solve them, unlike those other louts….

….

But if we take Ramaswamy seriously (a questionable choice, but let’s go with it), he’s claiming he would have tried to strong-arm Congress into submitting and passing his preferred election proposal, saying he’d reject Biden’s victory unless they complied. The idea that such a move would have “united” the country rather than throwing it into a deeper crisis seems obviously false.

Throughout his campaign, Ramaswamy has made proposals of dubious legality and practicality. For instance, he’s said he’ll simply fire “at least half” of federal employees in violation of the law and that he’ll just make broad claims of presidential power and hope the Supreme Courtdeclines to stop him. On foreign policy, he’s said he would simply turn Russia against China (despite the two nations’ claims of a “no limits” partnership). To deal with Chinese designs on Taiwan, he’s said he’ll guarantee a US military response only until America is no longer reliant on Taiwan to manufacture semiconductors — which he says he’ll accomplish by 2028. Simple!

In response, experts pull their hair out, established politicians (like his debate stage rivals) complain it’s not so simple, and journalists write tut-tutting fact-checks. But so long as all this sounds enough like “common sense” to GOP primary voters, Ramaswamy won’t be hurt in the polls and may even be helped, since many of those voters wouldn’t trust experts or journalists anyway.

All of that surely sounds familiar, since Trump has long followed a similar playbook of promising big with little regard to what was plausible or made sense. But where Trump’s talk often came off as half-serious showman bluster, Ramaswamy is more the high-achieving millennial who’s crammed for the test and come up with a superficially smart-sounding but ultimately vapid answer. Both have the same goal: to try to get one over on you.

 

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/8/29/23843885/vivek-ramaswamy-pence-january-6-taiwan-china

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

If Trump is barred from running.. then DeSantis is the likely alternative. If not him then Nikki Haley. 

Oh please...not a warmonger.

[robosmith]

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I guess so. Apparently so does Canada's ethics commissioner.

Does "Canada's ethics commissioner" have to prove anything about the case in court?

Has he even proven his allegations in the court of public opinion? Aside from those who like you, want to believe him....

[robosmith]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is evidence - in fact he admitted to it. The RCMP claims they didn't prosecute because it was not clear to them if the prime minister could give himself permission to break the law (there's a line in the law that might allow for that possibly).

Ok, so he didn't break the law then if that law gives him the authority decide when it can be violated.

Like I said, no evidence....

[robosmith]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

" I DON"T LIKE WHO THE PEOPLE PICKED AS A LEADER SO THAT"S THE END OF DEMOCRACY"

Sigh.

"DON'T LIKE" is NOT the end. If it were, it would have ended LONG AGO.

Sabotaging the electoral process to keep power is the end. Like when Hitler destroyed democracy in Germany.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Ok, so he didn't break the law then if that law gives him the authority decide when it can be violated.

 

No, he broke the law.  The question is can he pardon himself for it, and we don't know so they didn't bother.

It would be like if trump were found guilty of breaking the laws but then pardoned himself. You wouldn't say he 'didn't break the law would you?  -important question, this may be coming up again later....

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Does "Canada's ethics commissioner" have to prove anything about the case in court?

Has he even proven his allegations in the court of public opinion? Aside from those who like you, want to believe him....

Lol...ya...nobody in Canada thinks the commissioner was correct.

[robosmith]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, he broke the law.  The question is can he pardon himself for it, and we don't know so they didn't bother.

It would be like if trump were found guilty of breaking the laws but then pardoned himself. You wouldn't say he 'didn't break the law would you?  -important question, this may be coming up again later....

Since they "didn't bother," he was NOT CONVICTED and innocent until proven guilty. Duh.

IF Trump tries to pardon himself, it will be litigated in the SCOTUS, eventually. May have to wait until 2028.

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...ya...nobody in Canada thinks the commissioner was correct.

^Clearly wrong. People like yourself believe him because you want him to be right.

[Rebound]

On 8/28/2023 at 4:19 AM, Perspektiv said:

Easy. He commands respect within his base. This isn't just 20 000 people.

As a politician, you cannot afford to lose votes in the millions.

Trump can crush opposition in the snap of a finger.

Same reason Ramaswamy is tough on most subjects, except Trump. 

He has shown the loyalty Trump demands, so he is allowed to breathe. 

Scold Trump or publicly flog him, and he uses his immense influence, to crush you. Republicans are petrified of this.

Those that aren't, aren't in the slightest relevant in their party, or are using his name to build clout for for themselves like Chris Christie. Voters see through this, as showcased by his numbers.

Who else could post a picture of a mugshot and get an instant 7 million plus of donor dollars injected into their campaign?

Ignoring Trumps power, is a fatal mistake.

The harder they come, the harder they fall.