Oh, the irony.Are you white knighting for another dude? Who knew?
Oh, the irony.Are you white knighting for another dude? Who knew?
You won’t admit it but there will be lot more Ex-Biden voters voting for Trump this election than the opposite.You're welcome. I have plenty more if you'd like to see them.
You're welcome. I have plenty more if you'd like to see them.
Maybe but I seriously doubt it. It would be more likely that they don't vote at all. The only people enthusiastic about the choices are hard-core magats. Biden doesn't excite anybody so many of his voters will be hard-core anti-Trumpers. The rest will be fighting the couch.You won’t admit it but there will be lot more Ex-Biden voters voting for Trump this election than the opposite.
Nah, I prefer you hear their thoughts straight from the horse's mouth.You know, if we take into account enough individual accounts, we can then use statistics.
Nah, I prefer you hear their thoughts straight from the horse's mouth.
Tyical democrat. No cares about the truth. Just tell me what i want to hear.Nah, I prefer you hear their thoughts straight from the horse's mouth.
Wrong, I'm telling you what you don't want to hear.Tyical democrat. No cares about the truth. Just tell me what i want to hear.
/ThreadI'm gonna give my honest answer. None of it is necessary and it's all just political bullshit. There is nothing in your writeup above that isn't already the case or being doing.
What situation is the first clause trying to prevent? It's not a requirement that the form ask about citizenship (it does), it's an extra question. The impact will be that nobody is handed voter registration forms. Less voter registration due to a stupid admin hurdle is bad.
"Requires an individual to provide proof of citizenship before registering". Again, redundant. The form asks for proof and then it's checked.
There are too many variables to removing people from voter rolls, too many human errors, too many details, for people to be given broad power to remove others from rolls without extensive verification. Currently there exists a waiting period to ensure that election officials don't just get it a wrong a bunch of screw up people's right to vote.
So, no, I wouldn't vote for that nonsense. It doesn't accomplish anything.
Again, my post was from an ex-Trump voter who said he would no longer vote for him because of those comments. He wasn't talking about what happened in the past under different presidents, he was talking about NATO countries, NOT Ukraine. If you're honest, you would acknowledge how respectfully he talks about our enemies vs the nasty way he speaks about our allies - it's obscene.
Our allies deserve respect, especially when talking about them publicly. The angry bug he has up his own butt should not be more important than what's best for our country, period. Trump is temporary but our country is not.
Wrong, I'm telling you what you don't want to hear.
The graph doesn’t indicate anything about Trump directly.I don't like his style either. I guess my point is that if Russia attacks the UK and they only paid 1.7% GDP the prior year, he's not actually witholding aide. It's just bluster and his way of attempting to negotiate them into paying their fair share instead of being the ones holding everyone else's bag.
And btw, it has worked. His focus on this topic has resulted in increased contributions by NATO members (and decreased ratio from the US). Again, I don't like the style, but previous presidents allowed NATO countries to fall behind and Trump actually did something about it.
![]()
The graph doesn’t indicate anything about Trump directly.
Defense spending in Europe shot up in 2022 due to a Russian invasion. There was another call for more spending after the previous Russian invasion in 2014, when we got the 2% recommendation.
Let’s agree that Trump was right to hold some people’s feet to the fire. I don’t know what the case is now, but you had Germany, the largest economy in Europe, spending next to nothing on defense. That had to change. A lot of people were too slow to meet the 2% mark.
On the other hand, I think he was playing a dangerous and imprecise game. The Baltic states and Poland are pulling their weight. They’re the ones facing a threat, not Germany, Spain, or Albania. You shouldn’t threaten to blow up NATO or even weaken the US’s commitment to it when the countries who need it most are doing their part. And if it’s a purely transactional thing, is Trump sending the US to war over Estonia? He’s running on the idea that we’re doing far too much for Ukraine. What does the NATO idea mean to him anyway ?
In an imperfect arrangement, he was/is focused on the wrong things. Hold Putin’s feet to the fire instead.