The Next President is...

[SpeedOfHeat]

Just now, HeloDude said:

So you’re making a big deal about something that you even admit will never happen—so why should any of us care?  

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding.  If you are really this dumb, it is truly next-level.

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding.  If you are really this dumb, it is truly next-level.

Of course this is a response from someone who gets called out for their BS—you were also called out similarly a while back as well.  But again, you recently said that we should be concerned that Trump has said he’ll terminate the Constitution…but then afterwards you admit that it will never happen.  So why should I be concerned about something that you and I both agree will never happen?  However we look at it, the odds are extremely likely that either Trump or Kamala will be the next President, so of course I’m going to vote for the one who I believe has better policies/screws me the least.  All that “Trump is a fascist” stuff is just hyperbole nonsense.

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

No one, even among military officers, can simply say, “yea, that tweet was really shitty and/or deeply concerning, but….”

For someone who talks about reading comprehension you fell short of my expectations. It was implied in my last comment that yes, that was a shitty tweet, but I did not care because my focus was on policies (and an acknowledgement his rash tweet was impossible to execute).  That's not making excuses, it's prioritizing actions over words when judging others. Something I do with everyone in my life.

I'm not understanding your point; are you saying you do not support candidates unless you agree with everything they've ever tweeted or said?  I'd rather somebody speak plainly and say dumb shit periodically than be a scripted chameleon afraid to engage the public like our current commander-in-chief.
 

[SpeedOfHeat]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

you were also called out similarly a while back as well.

ha.  By “called out,” you mean you previously did exactly what you did in starting this exchange:  You missed my point entirely, and tried to have me answer some hypothetical gotcha question.  Except there’s no gotcha, because you didn’t understand my point.  I’m not “obviously afraid he’s going to suspend the Constitution.”  …..and it’s just additional icing on the facepalm cake that in totally misunderstanding my point of view, you described it as “obvious.”

Quote

you said that we should be concerned that Trump has said he’ll terminate the Constitution…but then afterwards you admit that it will never happen.  So why should I be concerned about something that you and I both agree will never happen? 

Not sure how else to break this down for you.  Either you’re trolling me, or you’re hopelessly dense.  

I’ll give it one last try.

Think of a few cherished American principles.  For example, freedom of speech or religion.  The right to peacefully assemble.  Voting rights, gun rights, etc. etc.  

Pretend for a moment that a prominent politician (…..go ahead and picture a democrat if that helps you get over this mental hurdle….) advocates for doing away with one or several of those rights.  Maybe by prohibiting a certain religion altogether.  Or banning guns entirely.  Or maybe it’s a military action -  something violating all western norms and principles concerning sovereignty  - like us annexing Mexico and/or Canada.  Something outrageous…… a prohibition or action so extreme that it would never actually be enacted.  

But here this politician is, on record for having advocated for it.  

Then you hear someone claim that this person “supports American principles.”

You wouldn’t find that objectionable?  You wouldn’t think “holy shit, this person is saying that this candidate represents the direct opposite of what s/he actually does”?  

You wouldn’t think “hmm, maybe I’ll take a moment to point out the glaring dichotomy between a guy that ‘supports American principles,’ but would like to, for example, subvert the Constitution to overturn an election.  I wonder…..does Brabus simply not know that Trump wrote this, OR, is it just the usual nauseating blind/hypocritical tribalism, and he doesn’t care?”

If a democrat tweeted that they wanted to literally ban all guns nationwide, you’re telling me you’d respond “why should I be concerned?  It’ll never happen.”  Give me a break.  

You can make reasonable assessments about what something thinks, what they know, and how intelligent and wise they are by what they say.  The more you listen to them talk, the more accurate this assessment becomes.  With a Presidential candidate, what they say or write gives clues into their understanding of American principles, the ways in which they intend to steer the country, and in a broader sense, their character and integrity.  

Just because Trump cannot actually suspend the Constitution, does not mean it’s not concerning that he suggested it.  It, along with many other examples, demonstrates to me that he does not support American principles, nor does he understand them.

If you still don’t understand this, if you’re still a military officer who doesn’t think it matters that a President can call into question the Constitution (…the singular basis upon which you took your oath), when an election doesn’t go his way, then there’s nothing I can do for you.

[SpeedOfHeat]

22 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

are you saying you do not support candidates unless you agree with everything they've ever tweeted or said? 

Of course not.  I don’t have to agree with everything they’ve ever said or tweeted.  However, when they say they want to terminate the constitution because they lost an election, I don’t know, I guess you could say that’s where I draw the line.  

Can you really not draw a distinction there?  Between questioning the Constitution and “everything” else they’ve ever tweeted or said?

Quote

I'd rather somebody speak plainly and say dumb shit periodically…

lol.  Yeah I guess we’re just too far apart on this issue.  The President of the United States calls to terminate the Constitution…..a significant and appalling statement in my mind. 

To you, ehh… it’s just saying “dumb shit.”  

Unbelievable.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

If a democrat tweeted that they wanted to literally ban all guns nationwide, you’re telling me you’d respond “why should I be concerned?  It’ll never happen.”  Give me a break. 

Do you honestly think that Trump would want to suspend the Constitution if he had the power to do so?  If your answer is yes, then we just disagree entirely.  And the rest of your nonsense is just that, nonsense. 
 

[tac airlifter]

55 minutes ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

Of course not.  I don’t have to agree with everything they’ve ever said or tweeted.  However, when they say they want to terminate the constitution because they lost an election, I don’t know, I guess you could say that’s where I draw the line.  

Can you really not draw a distinction there?  Between questioning the Constitution and “everything” else they’ve ever tweeted or said?

lol.  Yeah I guess we’re just too far apart on this issue.  The President of the United States calls to terminate the Constitution…..a significant and appalling statement in my mind. 

To you, ehh… it’s just saying “dumb shit.”  

Unbelievable.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.  So your issue is that you took his statement seriously.  I took his statement as tongue in cheek.  
 

I find the lawfare conducted against him as far more threatening to our constitutional republic than a few joking tweets.  So yes, I think we're pretty far apart on this issue.  

[SpeedOfHeat]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Do you honestly think that Trump would want to suspend the Constitution if he had the power to do so?

Yes.  Of course.  Because that’s what he wrote.  

I know Trump lies incessantly and is a master bullshitter, but when there’s a lengthy tweet from his account, with no other hints of sarcasm or jest, yeah, I take him at his word.  

It’s so insane to think that in your heads, the subject of terminating the constitution, election fraud, etc. are a subject fit for jokes from the POTUS.  That’s how you justify it…. “Ohh, the constitution and declaring himself the rightful winner??  Come on, don’t be such a stick in the mud!  He just likes to fvck with us for the lol’s.”  

Quote

And the rest of your nonsense is just that, nonsense. 

Of course this is a response from someone who gets called out for their BS

Edited August 4 by SpeedOfHeat

[BashiChuni]

amazing how kamala went from the most unpopular vice president in history, to suddenly a media darling front runner for president.

who hasn't won any vote for nomination, just picked by the big bosses in their soft coup. "defending democracy!"

[Smokin]

I think we too often underestimate how much to consider what people say about themselves and what they believe.  For example, when Hamas says they want to 'kill every Jew in the world' we would do well to take that seriously.

However, there are also people that need to basically be watched on mute because they are either playing to a target audience, just like constantly being the center of attention, or riling up the other side to get a desired reaction.  Trump is in this second group.  Ignore what he says and pay attention to what he does.

[kaputt]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

amazing how kamala went from the most unpopular vice president in history, to suddenly a media darling front runner for president.

who hasn't won any vote for nomination, just picked by the big bosses in their soft coup. "defending democracy!"

What’s worse is much of the American public seems to be buying it. 

[BashiChuni]

49 minutes ago, kaputt said:

What’s worse is much of the American public seems to be buying it. 

pre covid i wasn't too awake to the intense propaganda the media blasts the public with, but post covid holy hell is it obvious once you see it. operation mockingbird was a real thing and probably very much in use today under a new name.

just the fact the dems now say kamala was no longer in charge of the border, when she obviously was, is so 1984 Orwellian.

[M2]

14 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

amazing how kamala went from the most unpopular vice president in history, to suddenly a media darling front runner for president.

who hasn't won any vote for nomination, just picked by the big bosses in their soft coup. "defending democracy!"

You mean shit like this?

‘Republicans for Harris’ launch features key names, impressive numbers

According to a press statement from the incumbent vice president’s campaign, Republicans for Harris includes endorsements from former Trump White House officials Stephanie Grisham and Olivia Troye; former Secretaries Chuck Hagel and Ray LaHood; former Governors Jim Edgar, Bill Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman; former U.S. House members Rod Chandler, Tom Coleman, Dave Emery, Wayne Gilchrest, Jim Greenwood, Adam Kinzinger, John LeBoutillier, Susan Molinari, Jack Quinn, Denver Riggleman, Claudine Schneider, Christopher Shays, Peter Smith, Alan Steelman, David Trott, and Joe Walsh; and former GOP State Chair and State Senator Chris Vance, among others.

Of course, Adam Kinzinger is in that bunch! 😡😡

Speaking of which, I've just noticed @Homestar has been noticeable absent from here since March 2023!  On 1 Feb 21, he famously posted "I hope Adam Kinzinger is still reading this forum. He is the future of the Republican Party. If he and Dan Crenshaw could combine forces we could actually return to real conservative leadership." and "Maybe we could get a Crenshaw-Kinzinger ticket in 2024?"

His last post was... "There are times where I think that there's no way that our country would find itself back in a place where brothers are killing brothers on a battle field. But then I read threads here and am reminded that there are absolutely people here who wouldn't hesitate to shoot me dead if we ever get into a shooting war against ourselves."

[tac airlifter]

10 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

pre covid i wasn't too awake to the intense propaganda the media blasts the public with....

100% same.  Pre-Covid I only partly paid attention to or cared about politics. Now I feel like my eyes are open, and the coordinated big media propaganda is an active, obvious, and evil presence in our country.

[ClearedHot]

16 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

100% same.  Pre-Covid I only partly paid attention to or cared about politics. Now I feel like my eyes are open, and the coordinated big media propaganda is an active, obvious, and evil presence in our country.

[BFM this]

In more banal news:

Media clutching pearls over JDV “eyeliner”

Nixon - JFK debates called: they want their news flash back 

[Sim]

 

[bfargin]

Computer expert too

https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1819797240052920758

[bfargin]

Brilliant economist as well.

[bfargin]

 

Sounds like he didn't desert but he didn't fulfill his last re-enlistment of 6 years (bailed early legally when he found out he was about to be deployed). The real issue is claiming to have carried weapons "in war" and retired as a Command Sgt Major instead of his actual retirement rank of E-8.

I take issue with the "in war" part since he was never in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I'm not too bothered by the rank issue (he did serve as a provisional CSM for a few months before he retired). 

Big deal or not?

[lilyelliott4]

On 11/9/2016 at 10:35 AM, BashiChuni said:

one of the bigger upsets i can remember

i should have put money on trump three weeks ago when he was +700

Crazy, right? Hindsight is 20/20. Betting on Trump at +700 would have been a huge win!

[Negatory]

All of the arguments here the past couple of weeks:

 

It’s not that hard. Pick a new candidate and you’d have a chance. The Dems did it and are gonna win because of it. If Rs had gone Nikki Haley before Biden dropped out, this wouldn’t even be close. Trump can only win against a candidate at terrible as Biden.

[Smokin]

We'll see.  Dems are only excited about Harris because she's not Biden.  It'll be interesting to see if that lasts or if they'll remember that she was one of the first primary candidates to drop out 4 years ago because she was polling in the low single digits.

DEI politics could come back to bite the Dems.  Had Biden chosen just about any of the other primary candidates for a VP back then, I'd bet that person would be up 10 points in the polls and would cruise through the election.  On the flip side, had the Republicans nominated just about any other candidate, that person would be up 10 points over Harris.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

All of the arguments here the past couple of weeks:

 

It’s not that hard. Pick a new candidate and you’d have a chance. The Dems did it and are gonna win because of it. If Rs had gone Nikki Haley before Biden dropped out, this wouldn’t even be close. Trump can only win against a candidate at terrible as Biden.

He was a better candidate than Hillary, and Hilary was by far a better candidate than Kamala. 

 

I suspect all Kamala did was reenergize the (D) turnout, so now we have two high-turnout candidates. 

 

If Kamala and Walz are stupid enough to debate, they'll probably lose. If they keep hiding from any scrutiny or positions, they have a chance. But the race is always about swing states, and I can't imagine how two open progressives from two solidly progressive states will change the electoral math. 

 

Either way, it's clear the Democratic party is as dead as the Republican party. I'm not sure what emerges from the ashes.

[jice]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Either way, it's clear the Democratic party is as dead as the Republican party. I'm not sure what emerges from the ashes.

Sadly, we all know the answer to this one: The Democratic and Republican Party!.. but better. No, really; they’re totally gonna turn it around this time. 
 

It’s time to get serious about ranked choice voting and open primaries.