The Trump Administration is Emulating Russia.

[gatomontes99]

6 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

It's not about preventing terrorism, nimrod! it's about smothering dissent!

That is an assertion without basis. Do you want to provide one? ANTIFA is literally conducting organized attacks on CBP and ICE facilities. That is not about suppressing dissent. That is straight up domestic terrorism. 

6 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I never defended Biden. I never said a word about Biden. I don't give a shit about Biden! But I see what is happening to the USA right now, and it is a grave cause of concern.

Yes you did. When I pointed out Biden declared Catholic Churches extremists you said some are. That is a defense. 

 

[Radiorum]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Give an example of what you are talking about here. Who are you talking to?

Very few of you want to discuss the issues. It's never "let's examine what Trump is doing" - but rather a defensive posture is assumed, usually with a good amount of "whataboutism." There are real things going on right now in real time and they are certainly unprecedented and when I say "look what's going on" -  I meet a wall of resistance that I believe is grounded in an unwillingness to to concede that some of it might be true. What I say won't be listened to -  that would spell some kind of surrender for some of you, and you are all so wrapped up in being tough and in opposition.

15 minutes ago, User said:

Lets be clear, you run away. 

Give me something worth responding to. Give me something that make me think instead of the usual insults. 

[User]

Just now, Radiorum said:

Very few of you want to discuss the issues. It's never "let's examine what Trump is doing" - but rather a defensive posture is assumed, usually with a good amount of "whataboutism."

Again, I asked for examples. This is just more vague assertions. 

When you come on here pushing the standard surface-level deep talking points based on lies, misinformation, or falsehoods about Trump, the response is going to be to point that out. 

That is not being defensive; it is called engaging in fact-based debate. 

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

There are real things going on right now in real time and they are certainly unprecedented and when I say "look what's going on" -  I meet a wall of resistance that I believe is grounded in an unwillingness to to concede that some of it might be true. What I say won't be listened to -  that would spell some kind of surrender for some of you, and you are all so wrapped up in being tough and in opposition.

More vague assertions. Lets start with this thread, you did not start this thread with any kind of "loo what's going on"

No, you absurdly and cartoonishly called this thread The Trump Administration is Emulating Russia based on your completely dishonest take on the administration targeting violence and threats of violence. 

 

[Radiorum]

11 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

ANTIFA is literally conducting organized attacks on CBP and ICE facilities.

And have you read anything about how ICE is terrorizing Americans?

 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Give me something worth responding to. Give me something that make me think instead of the usual insults. 

I did, you ran away. 

Just now, Radiorum said:

And have you read anything about how ICE is terrorizing Americans?

 

They are not. They are focused on enforcing federal laws that target illegal immigrants. You choose to focus on the extreme few incidents you can try to politicize and even then end up pushing lies and mischaracterizations about what is going on. 

[Radiorum]

1 minute ago, User said:

d on lies, misinformation, or falsehoods about Trump,

I have never, and this is false.

2 minutes ago, User said:

The Trump Administration is Emulating Russia

OMFG - wake the f**k up!

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

You mistake my eye-rolling for anger.

No kid I don't. I have a lot of years on this planet and I spend my days dealing with people. You can lie to yourself, you can lie to others, but you can't lie to me

Quote

That the USA has sided with Russia is a topic to be taken seriously. It upends the entire world order.

Then you would need to make an argument along those lines but what you said is that trump wants to turn America into Russia by following their authortarian model. You're changing your argument now because you realize the way you posed it wasn't a particularly rational or unbiased way, so you're trying to sound more reasonable.

 

Quote

Get your head out of the sand.

Was this your example of reasoned debate? I gave you a completely defensible position, facts, and a well reasoned argument and you retort with this.

You could have said I was wrong or given an example of where trump is doing something unprecedented but instead your entire argument was this.

I get that you're trying to do the my hardener game of "I'm so above all of you that I can't even respond reasonably to your sensible arguments and that's why I'm not actually countering anything you say", But it doesn't work for him either and he's better at it

Seriously, any right you may have felt you had to complain about other people not having reasoned or rational debates or discussions went out the window with that reply

Now are you going to make an actual argument, or do I need to just simply have your diapers changed?  

[User]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

I have never, and this is false.

In this very thread you did and I have pointed it out already to you in the last hour. You dishonestly chose to ignore the part where they are focused on VIOLENCE and THREATS OF VIOLENCE. 

You just keep running away from this. 

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

OMFG - wake the f**k up!

Oh wow, look at your fact-based quality discussion! Oh my. ROFL

[gatomontes99]

13 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

And have you read anything about how ICE is terrorizing Americans?

 

Nope. But they are terrorizing people that are breaking the law just by being here. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by gatomontes99

[Radiorum]

9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

But they are terrorizing people that are breaking the law just by being here. 

You are misinformed

[gatomontes99]

6 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

You are misinformed

Another accusation that is an admission. 

[gatomontes99]

29 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

OMFG - wake the f**k up!

You understand that your argument is nothing more than "JUST BELIEVE ME!!!" You can't back up your own thread. 

[John Stone]

15 hours ago, User said:

Of course it is. 
 

 

And… still no idea what you are talking about. 

The Electoral College is def not democratic. 

A 2 party electoral system whereby the win can be  declared with less than a majority of  the popular vote is most def, NOT democratic.  

[User]

25 minutes ago, John Stone said:

The Electoral College is def not democratic. 

A 2 party electoral system whereby the win can be  declared with less than a majority of  the popular vote is most def, NOT democratic.  

It doesn’t have to be 2 parties, that is simply how the system has evolved. 
 

The winner is determined by majority of the electoral college who were supported by a majority of the electorate. 
 

You folks don’t like the system because it sometimes favors Republicans. That is all. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by User

[John Stone]

6 minutes ago, User said:

It doesn’t have to be 2 parties, that is simply how the system has evolved. 
 

The winner is determined by majority of the electoral college who were supported by a majority of the electorate. 
 

You folks don’t like the system because it sometimes favors Republicans. That is all. 

 

7 minutes ago, User said:

It doesn’t have to be 2 parties, that is simply how the system has evolved. 
 

The winner is determined by majority of the electoral college who were supported by a majority of the electorate. 
 

You folks don’t like the system because it sometimes favors Republicans. That is all. 

U need to study the process a little more. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

U need to study the process a little more. 

How so?

You have no argument. 

[Deluge]

On 12/7/2025 at 9:26 AM, Radiorum said:

Wow, three "special kind of stupid" (the kind that Trump likes) posts in a row

When dissent becomes "domestic terrorism" you are no longer living in a free society

Explain how dissent with a woke cultist like you, is domestic terrorism. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by Deluge

[Radiorum]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Explain how dissent with a woke cultist like you, is domestic terrorism. 

I was talking about the moves the Trump Administration is making

[John Stone]

31 minutes ago, User said:

How so?

You have no argument. 

 

In the controversial 2000 election,   finally decided by SCOTUS,  George W. Bush was elected president, despite having lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore by 543,816 votes.2

 In the 2016 election, Republican Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes but was elected president by winning 304 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 227

 

To understand how this could happen, u need to understand the electoral college and more importantly, how the weight of electoral vote is determined - basically it's winner take all. 

No, the present system is not democratic ......... and believe me, the winning Congress does not want to change it . 

 

I'd just add that SCOTUS is going to be playing a huge role in the next General - if not the midterm. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by John Stone

[Deluge]

25 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I was talking about the moves the Trump Administration is making

He's making necessary moves. 

Remember, pervert, YOU let the illegal aliens in and now WE have to take the illegal aliens out. It's as simple as that. 

What REALLY needs to happen is to arrest all the activists that let the illegals in here in the first place and throw all the lower judges in jail for obstruction. 

AGAIN: YOU let the illegal aliens in here, and WE have to take the illegal aliens out. 

[User]

19 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

In the controversial 2000 election,   finally decided by SCOTUS,  George W. Bush was elected president, despite having lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore by 543,816 votes.2

 In the 2016 election, Republican Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes but was elected president by winning 304 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 227

 

To understand how this could happen, u need to understand the electoral college and more importantly, how the weight of electoral vote is determined - basically it's winner take all. 

No, the present system is not democratic ......... and believe me, the winning Congress does not want to change it . 

 

I'd just add that SCOTUS is going to be playing a huge role in the next General - if not the midterm. 

I understand the process, this doesn’t explain why you think I need to do more. 
 

Just giving me random facts doesn’t explain your comment at all.

23 minutes ago, John Stone said:

No, the present system is not democratic ......... and believe me, the winning Congress does not want to change it . 

You are just making the same assertion again, no arguments. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

I was talking about the moves the Trump Administration is making

OK… and? 
 

They are targeting VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE

Are you ever going to actually engage here honestly or with any substance? You know, like you claim you want? 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, User said:

I understand the process, this doesn’t explain why you think I need to do more. 
 

Just giving me random facts doesn’t explain your comment at all.

You are just making the same assertion again, no arguments. 

It  can lead to situations where a candidate who wins the popular vote does not become President  and by extension leads to an elected president (who lost the popular vote) that is less representative of the people.

Somewhat ironic that the framers created it as a compromise between  electing the President by a vote in Congress and by popular vote - not realizing that the potential existed for  the winner to be determined despite the fact of losing the popular vote. 

No doubt something for SCOTUS to determine - that August, apolitical body that is appointed politically. bwahaha! 

 

Edited December 10, 2025 by John Stone

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, John Stone said:

It  can lead to situations where a candidate who wins the popular vote does not become President  and by extension leads to an elected president (who lost the popular vote) that is less representative of the people.

Somewhat ironic that the framers created it as a compromise between  electing the President by a vote in Congress and by popular vote - not realizing that the potential existed for  the winner to be determined despite the fact of losing the popular vote. 

No doubt something for SCOTUS to determine - that August, apolitical body that is appointed politically. bwahaha! 

 

But it's also to address regional issues.

Let's not forget that true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. You can face the tyranny of the majority.

To prevent that a number of things were put in place, including certain rights and guarantees in the constitution to prevent governments from trampling people's rights even if it's popular, but also to ensure that certain regions didn't get completely overwhelmed by areas with higher population density.

Even in Canada we have the riding system Which is the same sort of thing on a smaller level. And two of Trudeau's terms happened after he lost the popular vote but won the most seats.

America has a democratic process built into its government systems but it is not a democracy nor would you want it to be a democracy. No system is perfect and I think that the Westminster system is a better model than the united states republic system but at the end of the day every single system is going to be a bit of a compromise between how the people have their say and efficient rule of government

[User]

17 minutes ago, John Stone said:

It  can lead to situations where a candidate who wins the popular vote does not become President  and by extension leads to an elected president (who lost the popular vote) that is less representative of the people.

Somewhat ironic that the framers created it as a compromise between  electing the President by a vote in Congress and by popular vote - not realizing that the potential existed for  the winner to be determined despite the fact of losing the popular vote. 

No doubt something for SCOTUS to determine - that August, apolitical body that is appointed politically. bwahaha! 

 

So what? The popular vote is irrelevant to electing the President. It doesn’t matter if someone loses that, and still becomes president because that isn’t how they are elected. 
 

You are not offering any argument as to why this isn’t Democratic. 
 

This is a chess match, and you are arguing chess isn’t a real game because the person who won the chess match didn’t also win the checkers game.