You're in the warm fuzzy afterglow. How about we revisit these conversations in 6 months?
Trump to nominate fox news host as secretary of defense
- Thread starter dbjork6317
- Start date
I think Biden should have given them the necessary resources, including the planes and the greenlight they asked for long ago, when it would have made a much bigger difference. Waiting until now does make it look like he's complicating it for political reasons.
I'm not a rubber stamp for Biden and the Democrats as my post above proves. Piggy accused me of saying the border wasn't an issue until I showed him my actual comments and you don't get to define me either.
You're awful cocky about beating a black lady who is far from an intellectual heavyweight by less than 50% of the vote. Is it really that shocking that America still isn't ready to have a female of color in office? His margin came in at 44 out of 51 elections that have been held since 1824, so let's not get too carried away with the mandate talk. By all appearances, he's looking to destroy government from the inside in order to benefit him and him alone. That's a pretty risky move and we better hope it works out for the many voters who just wanted cheaper eggs.
There are lots of reasons. But yes its shockingly bad. I work in this space.
Supply chain is constrained, recruiting is down, raw materials are bottlenecked (mostly because of China). Its actually alarming how reliant our military is on China. I've seen some supply chain illumination tools that really highlight how big the problem is.
Recruiting may be impacted by the DEI issues, but it is only a component of a much wider problem.
Then I'll take you at your word but I was only speakling to the narrow allegation that there are generals who prioritize DEI over military readiness. It's a great FoxNews talking point to enrage the flock but nobody with a lick of sense believes that nonsense.
I think you were actually genuine and even thoughtful in your response. Not sure I have seen that before. Well done sir
Oh, come on, you’re better than this. Blame it on her being a “black lady” instead of the dogshit policies she’s supported, her far left voting record, her clear unlikability, her inability to engage off script, her general incompetence and many other factors that made her one of the worst presidential nominees in history.
And like it or not, Trump made massive gains in expanding the tent. Hispanics and black men all shifted in a big way. He did better with young people. He outright won all married people as well as people with kids under 18, showing that families wanted Trump over the dem. Single women of course overwhelmingly broke for Harris.
The popular vote is stacked against republicans, so even a narrow win there is significant. Don’t pretend that it isn’t and that this isn’t a clear rejection of leftist policy.
No you are better than this because you know that what I'm saying is true and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the policies she proposed or "incompetence" because Trump's proposals are worse for the majority of Americans and his incompetence is legendary, with most historians agreeing that he's the worst President in history. You are only speaking for the 1% because I guarantee you the majority don't even know about their policy differences, they just want cheaper eggs.
Social media has also broken their brains - I was struck by an on the street interview I saw with a Haitian-American lady who said she was voting for Trump because he's honest (Lollololollllolol). Then when asked about what he said about the Haitians in Springfield, she said she thought he didn't really mean it and was just talking ....holy fvck.
This is not a clear rejection of leftist policy as she didn't propose anything radical that would turn them off, it's a reflection of the anti-incumbency fever happening around the world, where all global parties that had the unfortunate task of following the pandemic were ousted to punish them for inflation. Don't get carried away with your ideological theory because I guarantee you most don't even subscribe to it.
If we had run someone outside the current administration like Shapiro, I bet we would have seen a different outcome and you know it.
Last edited:
There was a time when a much larger percentage of our population felt a responsibility to protect our country against outside aggression
No end to the madness
www.theguardian.com
Trump nominates ‘Dr Oz’ as Medicare and Medicaid services administrator
TV personality’s medical advice has proven so controversial a 2014 study declared half of it ‘baseless or wrong’
And now Trump is expected to appoint WWE cofounder Vince McMahon's wife Linda McMahon, also a former wrestling executive to head the Department of Education.
Damn Rabbit Hole just keeps getting crazier every day.
Damn Rabbit Hole just keeps getting crazier every day.
No end to the madness
Trump nominates ‘Dr Oz’ as Medicare and Medicaid services administrator
TV personality’s medical advice has proven so controversial a 2014 study declared half of it ‘baseless or wrong’
To me, the choice was the lesser of 2 evils and the choice was easy.
I like Warren Buffet's approach on the budget deficit. Set a benchmark that congress must be held to and if they fail all sitting members would be ineligible for reelection because they failed. Unfortunately they will not pass a law that is not in a sufficient numbers self interest. He said he could fix it in 5 minutes.
I can never remember anything from Buffet that I could disagree with
Last edited:
Just read his section of 2025. And while I hesitate to trust anyone associated at all, I don’t find much objection on the surface.
What Brendan Carr, Trump's FCC pick, wrote in 'Project 2025' chapter
Brendan Carr is the second Project 2025 contributor Donald Trump has nominated to serve in his upcoming administration, following Tom Homan.
www.newsweek.com
I think the concern is that having a maga loyalist in charge of the FCC puts him in a powerful position to crack down on the free press, while giving Elon's X an outsized role in this arena. You'll notice he doesn't mention X in this statement below, even though we have hard evidence of Elon tweaking his algorithm to boost Republican leaning accounts starting in July .Just read his section of 2025. And while I hesitate to trust anyone associated at all, I don’t find much objection on the surface.
What Brendan Carr, Trump's FCC pick, wrote in 'Project 2025' chapter
Brendan Carr is the second Project 2025 contributor Donald Trump has nominated to serve in his upcoming administration, following Tom Homan.
"Carr argues that the largest technology companies, including Meta (Facebook) and Alphabet (Google), use content moderation techniques including shadow banning and demonetization to censor conservatives on their platforms, without having to offer detailed reasoning for their motives.
Currently, tech companies have broad scope under the First Amendment to moderate their privately owned platforms as they fit."
We know he has been a past champion of giving Elon's Starlink first choice at government broadband contracts. There's also plenty of evidence out there that he views his role through a strictly political lens and will use his position to be Trump's media attack dog.
I don't disagree with the misgivings and lack of trust. I'm with you. Just meant his broad ideas in general.
I always enjoy the cherrypicking of dates. it's been 50-50 this century, but GOP talking heads always seem to stop at 2008 to make it look worse.
Gov't Control has increased...remind me who signed the Patriot Act?
Yea, not agreeing here. Here are a few things the majority of the country thinks is bullshit:
- Covid bullshit
- DEI bullshit
- George Floyd riot/race division bullshit
These weren't that long ago and Kamala Harris is a poster child for most of this. Wanting to bail out rioters and she's the damn face of DEI hires (and preaches about equal outcomes vs. equal opportunity). Part of this election was a clear rejection of this leftist bullshit.
And nobody believed the "policies" that the DNC cooked up for her to try and win the election. Everyone knows she's a far left loon. Most liberal voting record in the senate, abolishing the filibuster to pass the green new deal, yada yada.
Maybe Shapiro would have been better, but you and @tboonpickens and others didn't think she was a problem a few months ago. You specifically called her and Tim Walz a "dream team" and tboon couldn't wait to post the positions she's held every time someone suggested she was a dogshit candidate (we now know that was accurate).
Inflation was clearly an issue, and the unnecessary money Biden pumped into the economy was clearly a factor in that. That's also leftist policy. More government spending. You can argue Trump did this as well, but the economy was in free-fall early in the pandemic and there was actually a reason to do it. Biden just injected money without any need to do so - and tried to do even more before Manchin stopped BBB.
There is also some anti-incumbancy fever, but don't let that mask the facts above. Leftist bullshit is being seen for what it is. It's finally becoming "accepted" to acknowledge that.
I would add wide open border and all the tranny bullshit to that list. I actually think the tranny stuff was the bridge too far for many people/demographics that could be counted on to just pull the Dem lever because that's just what they always have done. Not down with dudes playing sports and sharing locker rooms with girls, let alone exploiting and mutilating minors under the umbrella of "gender affirming care". That was so off putting and crazy to many that it got people to actually stop and think... and when they did they pulled the other lever to stop the crazy. Trump's "they/them" ads were super effective.
You and the people you know are not the majority of the country so what you think is bullshit doesn't apply to everyone. Those three things you named are more in line with maga grievances than anything else and I don't know a single person who complained about any of them.
I will grant you that DEI did play a role in Kamala's hire and that ditzy girl they chose for WH Press secretary. If they were going to hire DEI candidates, there were much better choices IMO. Before Kamala ran, my friends and family all agreed that she didn't have the mass appeal to win a presidential election, though she surprised the hell out of us when she did run by way out-performing expectations, so we got behind her because she was the only option that stood between us and a Trump presidency. The feeling was that she would at least provide stability and normalcy and would be surrounded by qualified, competent advisors.
The border was clearly an issue which actually drove me mad as well because I couldn't understand why he let it get so out of control for so long and never even addressed it. They successfully tied her to that issue by calling her the "border czar" when she was no such thing. She was asked to determine the reasons for the mass migrations from the three Central American triangle countries and that was it.
Inflation was another big issue and it didn't matter that the majority of economists agreed that her plans were better for the economy, including inflation, than Trump's but she was saddled with that issue as well, fairly or unfairly. We should have nominated someone outside of the current administration, so that we could show a clean break from the Biden administration.
Regardless, I firmly believe if we had run a more moderate, inspirational candidate like Shapiro, we would have easily won because remember, Kamala was way up in the polls for a while and especially after the debate. But when she started doing interviews she proved she couldn't articulate her platform and that sunk her. Shapiro wouldn't have had that problem.
So talk about a landslide/ mandate all you want but just to level set, this is what I posted in another thread.
- This was far from a landslide as far as the popular vote goes, in fact, it is 41st out of 55 elections that have been held since 1824.
- Trump won 49.9 % of the vote which means the majority voted for someone other than Trump
- She had a substantial lead up until she started doing interviews which showed that she was no great thinker
- If Josh Shapiro had run, he would have won easily so the clear lesson is we need to run better candidates, first and foremost.
Please show me where she wanted to bail out rioters.
The same BS that @Willence was proven wrong on then never came back and admitted it.
Those aren't just MAGA grievances. I'm not MAGA and know that stuff is T total bullshit. Looking back, how harmful were school closures to kids? How stupid were the draconian mask mandates? Business and public space closures? Terminating careers over a vaccine? Shit, a solid % of your party wanted to take children away from parents who didn't have their kids vaccinated. That is batshit insane.
Think about this. The President of the United States of America selected the race and gender of not only his vice president, but also his Supreme Court nominee before even evaluating and selecting a candidate. That is the most absurd and public application of the left's corrupted DEI philosophy possible. He would be fired by nearly every HR department in the US if that were a documented hiring approach. The DEI bubble has burst and we all know it's bullshit.
Piggybacking on the above, white people are still the majority in this country and we've heard since George Floyd that somehow we're bad people, should have white guilt, etc etc. Men have heard all about toxic masculinity and what not. Screw all that - more bullshit from the left that was rejected.
We agree on the border and inflation for the most part. The Biden/Harris admin fvcked up the border bigtime. They pumped too much money into the economy fueling inflation. Her DNC crafted public policies may have sounded better to economists, but who knows what she would actually support given her actual voting record and previous public positions (all super left). And we know the left will continue to want to spend more, expand entitlements, etc etc.
I'm not sure she ever had the lead or if polling just became more accurate toward the end. Nobody really ever liked her. And the popular vote is skewed against Republicans, so even a relatively narrow win there is a big deal.
I was? Harris absolutely retweeted to bail out people arrested in the protests. And given the scope of the protest, it was hard to differentiate between rioters and protesters. This is not a subjective matter. This was on June 1, 2020. The police precinct was burned down on May 28, 2020. So this post was well after things were completely out of hand and buildings were being burned, looted and people were being hurt and killed. What was I proven wrong about exactly?
I'm your huckleberry!
@scotchtiger just scorching the left with #facts.
@dpic73 you truly have some delusional takes right now. It's going to be a long 4 years.
- She was the border csar
- She did not outperform expectations, unless they expected her to lose
- What did she determine was the reason for mass migration? Did she issue a report or reach a conclusion of some type?
- And how do you still believe and give credence to languate that covers wide swaths of nothingness like "Most economist agreed". That shit literally means nothing. Put a name on it and you can evaluate the credibility they deserve. Kind of like polling. You wouldn't give the same credence to a cnn poll as say to a Rasmussen poll.
Whether you want to admit it was a mandate or not, it was a mandate and the MAGA's will treat it as such. Here is to hoping the left pivots to the center so that America wins. If they keep going the direction you are tugging, the results will be the same 4 years from now and America will not have as good of choices.
@scotchtiger @Willence
Are you both truly unable to distinguish between protesters standing up for what they believe, and rioters? Causing damage or looting.
She literally used the word protesters. The great majority of arrests were for crowd control, not violent rioters causing damage. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
Are you both truly unable to distinguish between protesters standing up for what they believe, and rioters? Causing damage or looting.
She literally used the word protesters. The great majority of arrests were for crowd control, not violent rioters causing damage. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
Hard to fathom how you'd fall for that kind of thing. Well...maybe not.
You sure you weren't the guy on CNN saying mostly peaceful?
I had many friends that went to extremely peaceful protests.
But yeah, I guess she was straight up bailing out rioters. My bad.
I can't imagine she'd want to do that. However, she posted that a few days after a police station was burned down. There were about 1500 buildings damaged. There was over $500m in damage to the area. People were killed.
She didn't try to calm things down. Instead, she said contribute to a fund to bail people out. The organization MFF raised millions but spend only a fraction of that bailing people out. Most people they bailed out were small violations though it is also shown that most didn't need assistance to post bail. It is also documented they posted bail for a man who was charged with attempted murder. They also posted bail for other violent offenders during that time as well as people who were charged with property damage. Who knows where the rest went. Probably the same place a huge amount of the BLM money went which was into people's pockets.
You can play semantics with it all you want. I am fine saying she probably didn't want buildings being burned down. But you need to be fine saying she did something that was escalatory at a time that we needed to be calming things down. She's an absolute imbecile of a person. Just look at her campaign and the tremendous waste with the funds she was given to see how horrible she would have been for this country.
I'm not arguing that there weren't consequences to some of the measures they took but I also understood that they were trying to SAVE LIVES. That made perfect sense to most of us and we didn't blame them for trying to figure this thing out as they went along - it's not like a pandemic comes along on the regular so stop trying to pretend that you always knew better with your perfect 20/20 hindsight.
I've already addressed the VP pick but I see the Supreme Court pick differently. She was eminently qualified for that position despite your DEI argument but if there should be a requirement for diversity anywhere, the Supreme Court is it. Since they rule on the law of the land, their rulers should reflect the population as a whole IMO. The way I see it, staffing it with all middle-aged white men would not give confidence to anyone disadvantaged by their rulings if they didn't share the same demographics of that group - so agree to disagree there.
I'm white and masculiine and I didn't incorporate any of those feelings you just described. In fact, I didn't take it as an assault on me in any way, shape or form but you do you.
I assume you saw her rally crowds? If so, you can't tell me nobody liked her. Something happened with her when she threw her hat in the ring and you couldn't ignore the buzz and excitement. And just remember that you consider her the worst candidate in history and she still only lost by 1.5% in the popular vote. Shapiro would have blown trump out of the water so no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Are there lessons to be learned and messages to be refined? Absolutely, but you could still make the argument that it's the candidate stupid.
BTW, this is where the polls were in mid-September
You don't have to convince me it was a poor choice. I am also not at all a Kamala fan. Never have been.
But you have repeatedly stated that the democrats go overboard on this, that Trump or whoever really meant that. But then turn around and say she was bailing out rioters. That is where the last argument came from. The post started with you going after someone for going overboard or sensationalizing something (they likely were) and then turning around saying she bailed out Rioters.
I could easily prove everything I said and punch holes in your nonsense but why waste the time. Feel free to google it and you can find out for yourself. So cocky about a mandate because you beat "the worst candidate in US history" by 1.5% LULZ
