Trump blatantly violating court orders: it means nothing less than a de facto end of the constitutional order in the U.S.

[robosmith]

30 minutes ago, myata said:

Maga lies. It lied about the election, it lied for a multi-felon an aspiring dictator (Gaza statue) and now it lies for Vlad the Butcher. Lying is all it does and it has no other purpose but to lie, lie and pump grotesque absurd lies endlessly.

The purpose is to manipulate fools by sewing so much chaos that they cannot figure out the truth of what's happening.

[myata]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The purpose is to manipulate fools by sewing so much chaos that they cannot figure out the truth of what's happening

Did you mean Democrat congressfolk as well? They look terribly smug and mum.. waiting for that election has to be, the wise strategy and then zip right back to the status quo. Just like in Germany, 1938, right? Democracy is guaranteed it's just the process. With some people some lessons will never be learned.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Did you mean Democrat congressfolk as well? They look terribly smug and mum.. waiting for that election has to be, the wise strategy and then zip right back to the status quo. Just like in Germany, 1938, right? Democracy is guaranteed it's just the process. With some people some lessons will never be learned.

The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; all great bills for the people. Trump et al are firing 10s of thousands, without even taking a vote in Congress because they're too scared to pass unpopular laws. 

I'll take the Democrats' status quo any day.

[myata]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I'll take the Democrats' status quo any day.

You may have forgotten something.. like protecting the constitutional order? No?

[User]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Maga lies. It lied about the election, it lied for a multi-felon an aspiring dictator (Gaza statue) and now it lies for Vlad the Butcher. Lying is all it does and it has no other purpose but to lie, lie and pump grotesque absurd lies endlessly.

Well... what do you care about lying? That is what you do here day after day after day. You wont give specifics, even now, nothing specific. 

 

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, myata said:

You may have forgotten something.. like protecting the constitutional order? No?

Biden's DoJ spent over 3 years prosecuting 1500 who tried to destroy the Constitutional order, so I'll take Democrats over the MAGA CULT who tried to destroy it any day.

51 minutes ago, User said:

Well... what do you care about lying? That is what you do here day after day after day. You wont give specifics, even now, nothing specific. 

 

^Nothing specific about lies told. LMAO

Easy to allege lies, difficult to prove they are lies.

[User]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Biden's DoJ spent over 3 years prosecuting 1500 who tried to destroy the Constitutional order, so I'll take Democrats over the MAGA CULT who tried to destroy it any day.

Except, this isn't true. 1500 people did not try to "destroy the Constitutional order" nor was that what the vast majority of them were being prosecuted for. 

The vast majority were being dragged through the mud and punished for little more than the equivalent of trespassing. 

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Nothing specific about lies told. LMAO

Easy to allege lies, difficult to prove they are lies.

Literally my first post here, I called out the lie and proved my point:

 

[myata]

There are two main owners of this debacle which will now reverberate for decades and generations without any clear exit back to normality. One is rotting Republican party - now completely freed of last relics of integrity that has been the main foundation of the constitutional order in America. And the second, but also a necessary contribution without which it couldn't have happened is the astounding lightheartedness, blindness and complacency of the democratic party. This was the task and the challenge that couldn't be failed. But Joe wanted to rule in his dream world. He thought he could dictate his wishes to the reality in no less detached manner as his mindless successor. Nobody could call through to Joe. No one was home. At the last moment, the replacement was wrong. The Time asked made it very clear that the strongest possible candidate was needed. Democrats came up with their old patently failing template and a "meh" in place of real, intelligent effort. The Time doesn't tolerate neglect. This resounding failure has more than one owner.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, myata said:

There are two main owners of this debacle which will now reverberate for decades and generations without any clear exit back to normality. One is rotting Republican party - now completely freed of last relics of integrity that has been the main foundation of the constitutional order in America. And the second, but also a necessary contribution without which it couldn't have happened is the astounding lightheartedness, blindness and complacency of the democratic party. This was the task and the challenge that couldn't be failed. But Joe wanted to rule in his dream world. He thought he could dictate his wishes to the reality in no less detached manner as his mindless successor. Nobody could call through to Joe. No one was home. At the last moment, the replacement was wrong. The Time asked made it very clear that the strongest possible candidate was needed. Democrats came up with their old patently failing template and a "meh" in place of real, intelligent effort. The Time doesn't tolerate neglect. This resounding failure has more than one owner.

Do you have any idea what it would have done to the more than half of the Democratic base, to pass by a woman of color who was next in line, for the ballot?

Women and blacks would have rebelled en masse.

IF there had been a clearly STRONGER successor, that would have been a different story. But WHO WAS THAT?

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Do you have any idea what it would have done to the more than half of the Democratic base, to pass by a woman of color who was next in line, for the ballot?

But that culture itself is one the Democrats helped create. At some point you have to acknowledge that. Politicians on the left would be quick to accuse other politicians of racism for not choosing a black person or a woman no matter the reason. They did this not because they believed it was true but to score points. And it worked. Until it stopped working. And now it's come back to bite them.

I mean you are basically admitting it here. myata said it was imperative for this election that Democrats put forward the best possible candidate. And you don't respond by arguing why she was the best possible candidate. You say but she was a "woman" of "color". How would that look? You yourself have basically just made the case that Kamala was the DEI candidate. And that is why people oppose DEI, because once you send out the message that things like color and gender ought to take precedence over merit, and to call people who think that is wrong racists, then you've handcuffed yourself. That's what DEI creates. If there was a better candidate for an election you consider so important, you could not possibly choose one. The democrats would call anyone else racist for doing so. Therefore.....

Quote

IF there had been a clearly STRONGER successor, that would have been a different story. But WHO WAS THAT?

Just about anyone who didn't say stuff like this.....

 

Edited March 1, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Do you have any idea what it would have done to the more than half of the Democratic base, to pass by a woman of color who was next in line, for the ballot?

 

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

But that culture itself is one the Democrats helped create. At some point you have to acknowledge that. Politicians on the left would be quick to accuse other politicians of racism for not choosing a black person or a woman no matter the reason. They did this not because they believed it was true but to score points. And it worked. Until it stopped working. And now it's come back to bite them.

I mean you are basically admitting it here. myata said it was imperative for this election that Democrats put forward the best possible candidate. And you don't respond by arguing why she was the best possible candidate. You say but she was a "woman" of "color". How would that look? You yourself have basically just made the case that Kamala was the DEI candidate.

You completely IGNORED the question. Harris was not ONLY "a woman" of "color" she was the Vice President and that is traditionally the next in line candidate. My argument is SKIPPING HER would be an exceptional SLIGHT to a large majority of the Democratic base. AKA voters which the Democrats NEEDED.

Instead you resort to trying to refute a strawman argument that WAS NOT MADE. 

 

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Women and blacks would have rebelled en masse.

IF there had been a clearly STRONGER successor, that would have been a different story. But WHO WAS THAT?

 

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

But that culture itself is one the Democrats helped create. At some point you have to acknowledge that.

Duh. That is ALWAYS true on BOTH SIDES.

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Politicians on the left would be quick to accuse other politicians of racism for not choosing a black person or a woman no matter the reason. They did this not because they believed it was true but to score points. And it worked. Until it stopped working. And now it's come back to bite them.

Your allegation of dishonesty is neither true nor supported by anything but ^this OPINION.

 

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

I mean you are basically admitting it here. myata said it was imperative for this election that Democrats put forward the best possible candidate.

And you've made no argument that there was a better candidate. In fact you again ignored the the question "WHO WAS THAT?", and therefore supported the fact that there was none, BY BEING UNABLE TO NAME ONE CLEARLY BETTER CANDIDATE.

No one cares that you believe Harris spoke "word salad." Trump does that all the time.

Harris came within 1.5 points of Trump, and AFAIK no one else was polling better against Trump.

Certainly not CLEARLY better of 5-10 points over Trump.

 

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You completely IGNORED the question. Harris was not ONLY "a woman" of "color" she was the Vice President and that is traditionally the next in line candidate. My argument is SKIPPING HER would be an exceptional SLIGHT to a large majority of the Democratic base. AKA voters which the Democrats NEEDED.

Well, I would argue that her being Vice President was the least important of those two factors. You don't think they could have tossed out a VP who was unpopular in the previous primaries and gotten away with it? You don't think they could have said, "Well maybe the VP is next in line but since we are running against 'literally Hitler' we need someone better." No one would have been so offended about tossing the VP out that they would have elected "literally Hitler". And also since Kamala had to distance herself from her own administration, maybe it would have been more effective to run someone who wasn't in that administration. No, the larger factor here is they were scared to appear racist or sexist.

Quote

And you've made no argument that there was a better candidate. In fact you again ignored the the question "WHO WAS THAT?", and therefore supported the fact that there was none, BY BEING UNABLE TO NAME ONE CLEARLY BETTER CANDIDATE.

Bill Smith. Go find a democrat named Bill Smith. Or maybe Jane Wilson. Go find any of those people, ask them to tell you what they know about Ukraine. If they give you a better answer than this, you've got your man/woman. I mean, it's your party. Are you telling me there is no one better than this?

Quote

No one cares that you believe Harris spoke "word salad." Trump does that all the time.

If you want to talk about dumb stuff Trump has said and done, I can provide tons of examples myself. I admit I was cheerleading him pretty heavily, but I have started to question myself more about that lately. But even back when I was cheerleading, I would have admitted Trump says and does dumb stuff. You will never do it about Kamala. If Trump is an ignoramus, why couldn't Kamala beat him? If Harris came within 1.5 points of Trump imagine what Bill Smith, Jane Wilson or anyone with at least 10 more IQ point than Kamala might have done. And if Trump is literally Hitler, why couldn't they chuck out a VP as easily as they did  the President himself in order to save democracy?

I mean is there anything, anything at all robosmith, that you can think of? It doesn't have to be about Kamala herself. Just anything. Any sort of criticism you are willing to make toward the Democrat party after a loss? Is there something they could have done better? Or is it just the fault of Americans and everyone one else that they lost?

Edited March 1, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Well, I would argue that her being Vice President was the least important of those two factors. You don't think they could have tossed out a VP who was unpopular in the previous primaries and gotten away with it? You don't think they could have said, "Well maybe the VP is next in line but since we are running against 'literally Hitler' we need someone better." No one would have been so offended about tossing the VP out that they would have elected "literally Hitler". And also since Kamala had to distance herself from her own administration, maybe it would have been more effective to run someone who wasn't in that administration. No, the larger factor here is they were scared to appear racist or sexist.

Bill Smith. Go find a democrat named Bill Smith. Or maybe Jane Wilson. Go find any of those people, ask them to tell you what they know about Ukraine. If they give you a better answer than this, you've got your man/woman. I mean, it's your party. Are you telling me there is no one better than this?

If you want to talk about dumb stuff Trump has said and done, I can provide tons of examples myself. I admit I was cheerleading him pretty heavily, but I have started to question myself more about that lately. But even back when I was cheerleading, I would have admitted Trump says and does dumb stuff. You will never do it about Kamala. If Trump is an ignoramus, why couldn't Kamala beat him? If Harris came within 1.5 points of Trump imagine what Bill Smith, Jane Wilson or anyone with at least 10 more IQ point than Kamala might have done. And if Trump is literally Hitler, why couldn't they chuck out a VP as easily as they did  the President himself in order to save democracy?

I mean is there anything, anything at all robosmith, that you can think of? It doesn't have to be about Kamala herself. Just anything. Any sort of criticism you are willing to make toward the Democrat party after a loss? Is there something they could have done better? Or is it just the fault of Americans and everyone one else that they lost?

You STILL cannot name a single real person who polled at 5-10 points better than Trump.

That fact alone makes Harris the candidate with NO ONE ELSE CLEARLY BETTER.

No one but you right wingers complains about Harris talking "word salad."

[CouchPotato]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No one but you right wingers complains about Harris talking "word salad."

Trump says really dumb stuff. Often when talking about stuff at rallies he gets all the facts mixed up. He is loud, petty and often childish. He also appeals to some of the cheesiest most dumbed down aspects of culture. You see how easy that is?

You cannot admit that this is dumb....

 

Your argument is that only right wingers think that is dumb. Well, if only right wingers can come out and say that is dumb that might be part of the reason you guys lost. Full respect to myata for doing some self-examination.

I mean, I am not sure you have even admitted to yourself yet that Biden is senile. You know, Ben Shapiro was running stories about how bad Biden was back in 2021. We all knew. But no one in the mainstream media, no one in the democrat party could bring themselves to say it. Not only did they try to lie to us about what was happening in front of our own eyes, they told us Biden was smarter than ever. Maybe that might be part of why you guys lost.

1.5 points right. Any little things you can think of that might have helped you get closer to those 1.5 points? Or is it everyone else's fault?

Edited March 1, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Trump says really dumb stuff. Often when talking about stuff at rallies he gets all the facts mixed up. He is loud, petty and often childish. He also appeals to some of the cheesiest most dumbed down aspects of culture. You see how easy that is?

You cannot admit that this is dumb....

 

Your argument is that only right wingers think that is dumb. Well, if only right wingers can come out and say that is dumb that might be part of the reason you guys lost. Full respect to myata for doing some self-examination.

I mean, I am not sure you have even admitted to yourself yet that Biden is senile. You know, Ben Shapiro was running stories about how bad Biden was back in 2021. We all knew. But no one in the mainstream media, no one in the democrat party could bring themselves to say it. Not only did they try to lie to us about what was happening in front of our own eyes, they told us Biden was smarter than ever. Maybe that might be part of why you guys lost.

1.5 points right. Any little things you can think of that might have helped you get closer to those 1.5 points? Or is it everyone else's fault?

There is no medical standard for "senile." Biden has MCI, Mild Cognitive Impairment. 

There is a medical standard for Dementia, and that is the next step.

Thing is, you're not a doctor and you're JUST GUESSING.

One thing that MIGHT have given Harris a better chance is if Joe had given her more time.

An even better chance was if Joe had better prepared mentally and physically for his debate, since he was still recovering from an illness at the time.

Of course you STILL can't name any real person who polled 5-10 points better than Trump.

 

[CouchPotato]

43 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No one but you right wingers complains about Harris talking "word salad."

I don't know if that's true. I mean, sure left wingers did their best to gloss it over during the election, but before she replaced Biden it was a bit more acceptable to make fun of this. Or is the Daily Show a disseminator of right wing propaganda?

 

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato

[CouchPotato]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There is no medical standard for "senile." Biden has MCI, Mild Cognitive Impairment.

There you go. Who cares, robosmith, what we call it? People had to lead him around so he wouldn't get lost. His "mild cognitive impairment" was so unmild he was talking about dead people, and as I said everyone on the right knew it was happening back in 2021. Argue about it all you want. The American people saw it. Though it wasn't obvious to everyone until the debate. It was bad enough that they had to replace him. They lied about it til they couldn't lie anymore.

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

53 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

There you go. Who cares, robosmith, what we call it? People had to lead him around so he wouldn't get lost. His "mild cognitive impairment" was so unmild he was talking about dead people, and as I said everyone on the right knew it was happening back in 2021. Argue about it all you want. The American people saw it. Though it wasn't obvious to everyone until the debate. It was bad enough that they had to replace him. They lied about it til they couldn't lie anymore.

Everyone has a bad day now and then. I have times when it takes me a while to remember things I haven't thought about in many months.

What you call it makes a huge difference when YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS and JUST GUESSING.

Of course you STILL can't name any real person who polled 5-10 points better than Trump.

Edited March 2, 2025 by robosmith

[CouchPotato]

43 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What you call it makes a huge difference when YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS and JUST GUESSING.

No see it really doesn't matter what I call it. Whatever you call it, it amounts to the same thing... people saw it and they were like, "Uh yeah that guy can't run anymore." He's loony tunes. Loony tunes is not an official diagnosis, either. But the voters aren't doctors and they don't need to know the proper name for it. They aren't voting for someone like that. And they knew he was like that. Even if left wing media sources glossed it over for the people who watch left wing media sources, we knew it, Kamala knew it, the democrats knew it. I mean you can say he had just a mild touch of stage 1 of Exceedingly Slight Mild Cognitive Impairment if you like. They knew what it was was something the voters wouldn't like, and they did everything to cover for it. Like I said, people on the right were talking about it as early as 2021, and it started leaking out more and more in that entire last year or so leading up to the election. And they had to have Karine Jean Pierre tell you all it wasn't real. If you see videos of Joe Biden having to be lead around like a lost puppy and showing other completely harmless signs of having a mild touch of stage 1 Exceedingly Slight Mild Cognitive Impairment, don't worry, they are all just cheapfakes.

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

24 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

No see it really doesn't matter what I call it. Whatever you call it, it amounts to the same thing... people saw it and they were like, "Uh yeah that guy can't run anymore." He's loony tunes. Loony tunes is not an official diagnosis, either. But the voters aren't doctors and they don't need to know the proper name for it. They aren't voting for someone like that. And they knew he was like that. Even if left wing media sources glossed it over for the people who watch left wing media sources, we knew it, Kamala knew it, the democrats knew it. I mean you can say he had just a mild touch of stage 1 of Exceedingly Slight Mild Cognitive Impairment if you like. They knew what it was was something the voters wouldn't like, and they did everything to cover for it. Like I said, people on the right were talking about it as early as 2021, and it started leaking out more and more in that entire last year or so leading up to the election. And they had to have Karine Jean Pierre tell you all it wasn't real. If you see videos of Biden acting like he has a mild touch of stage 1 Exceedingly Slight Mild Cognitive Impairment, don't worry, they are all just cheapfakes.

Do you even understand that debates are NOTHING like the day to day responsibilities for POTUS?

No POTUS EVER has to make snap decisions without conferring with his advisors.

But I can see you believe something else and will go with your SIMPLISTIC UNDERSTANDING while pretending Biden was a disaster as POTUS because he's "senile." The FACT is, Biden has done a much better job than the Orange Oaf who believes he is some kind of "King" and is destroying our government. 🤮 

[CouchPotato]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Do you even understand that debates are NOTHING like the day to day responsibilities for POTUS?

No POTUS EVER has to make snap decisions without conferring with his advisors.

OK, then, why didn't they stick with Biden? I mean he is obviously fine. And he has all kinds of advisors. What's the problem? Was tossing Biden out a mistake then? Is there anything the Democrats could have done better? Is there anything they might have done wrong? One thing?

Quote

The FACT is, Biden has done a much better job than the Orange Oaf who believes he is some kind of "King" and is destroying our government. 🤮 

So, Trump is an orange oaf. Fair enough. Maybe you are right. Shouldn't the Democrats have beaten the orange oaf? I mean the Democrats have done nothing wrong right? They make no mistakes. Kamala was the perfect pick. Joe Biden was perfectly fine. So why didn't they win?

Quote

But I can see you believe something else and will go with your SIMPLISTIC UNDERSTANDING while pretending Biden was a disaster as POTUS because he's "senile."

You mean my simplistic understanding of senility or Mild Cognitive Impairment? My simplistic understanding doesn't really matter much. It was the Democrat party who pushed him aside, not me. I am just some dude on a forum.

How about this? Let's say you are right that there was no better option than Kamala. I don't know. Maybe you are right. You say this is because she was VP in conjunction with the demographic stuff (she's female, she's of color). Is it then possible that it was a mistake for Joe Biden to have selected her in the first place or for the Democrats to have pressured Joe Biden to select her?

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

OK, then, why didn't they stick with Biden? I mean he is obviously fine. And he has all kinds of advisors. What's the problem? Was tossing Biden out a mistake then? Is there anything the Democrats could have done better? Is there anything they might have done wrong? One thing?

So, Trump is an orange oaf. Fair enough. Maybe you are right. Shouldn't the Democrats have beaten the orange oaf? I mean the Democrats have done nothing wrong right? They make no mistakes. Kamala was the perfect pick. Joe Biden was perfectly fine. So why didn't they win?

You mean my simplistic understanding of senility or Mild Cognitive Impairment? My simplistic understanding doesn't really matter much. It was the Democrat party who pushed him aside, not me. I am just some dude on a forum.

How about this? Let's say you are right that there was no better option than Kamala. I don't know. Maybe you are right. You say this is because she was VP in conjunction with the demographic stuff (she's female, she's of color). Is it then possible that it was a mistake for Joe Biden to have selected her in the first place or for the Democrats to have pressured Joe Biden to select her?

It was the major donors who pushed Biden aside. Didn't you notice how much money flowed in for Harris?

Biden could have stuck it out, but campaigning on a shoestring made winning nearly impossible.

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It was the major donors who pushed Biden aside. Didn't you notice how much money flowed in for Harris?

OK, so why did those major donors push Biden aside?

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

OK, so why did those major donors push Biden aside?

Probably because he was significantly behind in the polls and not moving up.

[CouchPotato]

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Probably because he was significantly behind in the polls and not moving up.

Seems like this really started to become an issue right around the time of the debate. No coincidence there?

I seem to remember that right after the debate many Democrat pundits started to say the guy has to go. And I would say that caused the donors to pull out.

Edited March 2, 2025 by CouchPotato