You missed the point completely. Fairy tales of Trump doing photo slide shows for terrorists and walking out randomly certainly didn't deter Iran from sending actual missiles into a US base injuring 110 soldiers. The talking point of "peace" during his presidency is fan fiction. And its hilarious you think I would care about Trump if he wasn't running for president. Trust me, if all he doing was making another cameo in Home Alone 7 or creating new catch phrases for another game show instead of trying to grift another presidency, I would love it for him. Also, the link you reference was 2020. The blurb I pulled from was 2021 from Alyssa Farah, Pentagon spokeswoman. Alyssa Farah, speaking on the One Decision podcast, said there was pressure from the White House to downplay the success of the attack on the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq “There was an effort from the White House to want to say – the Iranians were not successful in harming our targets in response,” Farah said. “And I think that went too far. “And I think that it ended up glossing over what ended up being very significant injuries on US troops after the fact,” Farah said. “A hundred-and-ten American troops had traumatic brain injuries … which can range from a concussion to something (where) you could lose motor skills.” The former official said the White House also pressured the Pentagon to space out its reports on the number of injured, which gradually increased from January into February. She said it was Pentagon policy to release the information as soon as it is received and verified.
I find it hard to believe that Dementia Don would lie to the American public on such an important topic as injuries to soldiers in hot zones. Seriously though, what won’t Dementia Don lie about just to make himself look better? What Dementia Don lie would be a bridge too far for the MAGATs?
Republicans are really Monarchist at this point They want to return to the time of Royalty, Lords and Ladies, Knights, Merchant Class and Serf These people legitimately WANT TO BE RULED my "THEIR BETTERS" They believe the rich are rich by Divine Right and we should do everything to make sure they stay divine Back in the day - King James I belive - accomplished this through Religion - a modified Catholicism of sorts Now . .. - King Donald - is doing this with a Modified Religion of Capitalistic Christianity King James did this by corrupting the Clergy . .er. . . bringing the Clergy to his cause by hook or by crook King Donal is doing this by corrupting the Courts . .er. . . bringing the Courts to his cause by hook or by crook King James got the Aristocrats on his side and the lieges (Knights) King Donald is using the Rich Elites and their paid for politicians and law enforcement The Republicans wish to return to the time of being lead by a King . . . Honestly they are HYDRA of loyalist to the monarchy that hid in plain sight for 260+ years They want a king and The courts just gave them the path to it Rocket River
Which is more toxic? It's easily the guy on the left, because the toxic filth coming from his mouth spreads much further.
The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure. Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shared-psychosis-of-donald-trump-and-his-loyalists/ QAnon Memes, F-Bombs, and Tribunals: As Biden Faltered, Trump Amped Up the Crazy https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-trump-amped-up-crazy-biden-focus-1235054164/ Trump Reposts 'Where We Go One' QAnon Rallying Cry On Social Media https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-reposts-qanon-rallying-cry_n_6682f750e4b038babc7c7c00
related link will work for everyone Democracy’s Death Has Been Greatly Exaggerated Voters preferred Biden in 2020. Maybe they’ll pick Trump this time. That’s how the system works. By Matthew Hennessey July 1, 2024 at 5:20 pm ET In any normal election, last week’s debate would have been the end of Joe Biden’s long career. His performance was abysmal. Under the rules of regular political order, he’d pass the presidential baton to . . . someone, anyone. But this isn’t a normal election. Mr. Biden’s opponent is Donald Trump. Regular political order is suspended. Much of the country—including most of the media and all of the Democratic Party—is convinced that a second Trump administration presents a unique threat to democracy. For this reason he has to be stopped, even if doing so requires, well, subverting democracy. It’s worth remembering that those now warning about the dangers of a second Trump presidency rejected the first one like a chimpanzee heart. Powerful members of the intelligence and law-enforcement communities tried to derail Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020, a point that democracy’s defenders wave away today. Prominent Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Hakeem Jeffries outlandishly claimed Russia stole the 2016 election for Mr. Trump. The save-democracy crowd shrugged. In calling for Mr. Biden to step aside, the New Yorker’s David Remnickdescribes the election as “a referendum on democracy itself” and asserts a Trump victory would mean “diminishment of liberal democracy.” You might expect an explanation, a few bullet points perhaps. But liberals and progressives have been retailing this language for so long they think it explains itself. It doesn’t. How could a presidential election be a referendum on democracy? The American people elected Mr. Trump in 2016. They rejected him in 2020. They may elect him again in 2024, or not. That’s what democracy is. You win some, you lose some. What does it say about democracy if the people running major media outlets and one of the two major political parties don’t trust the judgment of the American people? The New York Times editorial board, in its call for Mr. Biden to step aside, got closer to defining Mr. Trump’s supposed threat to democracy: “If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.” Ah, so Mr. Trump will do things other presidents don’t do? Like foster division, prosecute his political opponents, defy the Supreme Court, and encourage lawlessness? Please, tell me more about these threats to democracy. Mr. Remnick says Mr. Trump has “an undeniably authoritarian personality,” whatever that means. True, he’s thin-skinned, uncouth and distractible, but Americans already know all that. They also know it was never Mr. Trump’s life plan to become the standard bearer of right-wing populism. He fell into it. Don’t imagine him the Machiavelli of Mar-a-Lago. He has neither the political vision nor the executive capacity to do something as ambitious as dismantling democracy. Democracy has other threats with which to contend. Where was Mr. Remnick when Chuck Schumer bellowed that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would “pay the price” if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade? Where were the Times editorialists when Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a promise to put the likely Republican nominee for president in prison? They were nodding along, that’s where. Jan. 6, 2021, looms large in all this talk of democracy’s waning days. Nothing like it ever happened before. But when Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol, the Constitution held them back. The law came down on everyone involved like an anvil. By contrast, when left-wing radicals took to the streets in summer 2020, and when they occupied college campuses this year, Democrats cheered them on and bailed them out. All political violence is unacceptable, but some is more unacceptable than others. When Americans use the word “democracy,” they don’t mean only elections. They mean the whole constitutional arrangement—free speech, the separation of powers, civil rights, a free press. American democracy is liberty and justice for all, from Molly Pitcher and Thomas Jefferson to Taylor Swiftand Travis Kelce. It’s two parties, Republican and Democratic. It’s government of the people, by the people and for the people. American democracy is a survivor. It has endured wars, assassinations, depressions and terror attacks. It won’t be dismantled so easily. It can, however, be used as a sharp stick. Democrats have shown themselves good at that. Anathematizing Republican presidential candidates as wannabe authoritarians has been their explicit project for more than 50 years. Reagan planned to declare martial law and start a nuclear war, they said. George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act so he could spy on librarians, they said. Joe Biden told a black audience that Mitt Romney was going to “put y’all back in chains.” So now Mr. Trump’s candidacy is more than just a bad deal for liberals and the issues they care about. It’s a hair-on-fire threat to democracy itself. And Democrats wonder why Republicans yawn. The motivations of Trump supporters are still poorly understood by the political class. Republicans aren’t falling in behind Mr. Trump because they hate democracy. No, they like it. It’s been good to them. Every four years democracy allows Republicans to sidestep the biased media and permanent bureaucracy and go directly to the people. Today, as in 2016 and 2020, red America wants to give Washington a smack. The way they’ll do it is by voting for Mr. Trump. That’s not a threat. That’s democracy. Mr. Hennessey is the Journal’s deputy editorial features editor. Appeared in the July 2, 2024, print edition as 'Democracy’s Death Has Been Greatly Exaggerated'.
Why? Clearly it is being asked and answered for the Presidency. Certainly at least one poster here has found that to be disqualifying. In fact, I would say the opposite. If you think Donald Trump's convictions are disqualifying, then you should never again complain that people are asked about that on job or rental applications. I disqualified Trump long before his felony convictions, but I would certainly say they are something a voter can consider.
Would this make the Guinness Book of records for the most lies ever uttered by a politician in a debate? Actually, it might be the record for the most lies uttered in less than 45 minutes by any person on earth.
related The United States Is A Pretty Damn Good Place With A Lot Of Room For Improvement A July 6 reflection on adopting an appropriately moderate stance on AMURRRRICA https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/...9&isFreemail=false&r=295un&triedRedirect=true Singal writes: When I was 24 years old or so, working a fun but low-profile job as an online editor at the Center for American Progress’s youth wing, I asked Jon Chait, one of my favorite writers, if he’d meet up with me. Because he is a mensch, he agreed to, and we got lunch in D.C. somewhere. At one point I was complaining about how flawed the U.S. was and how vital it was to fix things, and Chait responded, in his characteristically mild manner something like: Well, a few generations ago our ancestors lived in villages where sometimes other people would come in and just ransack everything and kill everyone. Things aren’t that bad. The point wasn’t that the U.S. was perfect — Chait didn’t and doesn’t think the U.S. is perfect, and around that time he published a book criticizing conservative economic policy for making life harder for Americans while enriching the wealthy. But the sense I get, looking back on that conversation, was that Chait was trying to cool the jets of a young and passionate would-be intellectual type who was reciting lefty mantras rather than really thinking things through. Whenever I engage in the navel-gazing act of thinking about how my views have changed since I started writing professionally, I remember that conversation, because I think it captured something important. *** Despite the fact that I spend a lot more of my time criticizing the left than I used to, I haven’t undergone any bona fide ideological transformation over the years, except at the edges. I’ve always thought the United States’ social safety net should be more expansive and fairer than it is. In many ways our country screws over poor people, or people thrust into sudden financial emergencies, in ways that seem brutally unfair and unnecessary, given the prevailing policies in other wealthy, industrialized nations, and given the sheer wealth we have at our disposal. I also have extremely strong liberal/libertarian views about freedom, and came of age politically at a time when anti-sodomy laws had only recently been deemed unconstitutional, conservatives (and some liberals) were endorsing the insane idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and youth culture was even more of a scapegoat for the world’s ills than it usually is. On most of these fronts my views haven’t really changed, except in the sense of having weaker preferences about what the actual policies should be than I did back then, when I was younger and dumber. In fact, these days my answer to most specific domestic policy questions is: “I don’t know. Leave it to the smartest, best experts to figure out.” It turns out that managing a country of 330 million people is a very, very difficult thing to do, especially given the surfeit of checks and balances that exist for good reasons but which also tend to promote scleroticism. I have a good friend who has worked to try to build mixed housing in Northern California — modestly sized developments that include both market-rate and affordable units. The stories he has told me about the veritable gauntlet of obstacles he and his team must navigate in order to ever-so-slightly increase the woefully inadequate affordable housing stock of Northern California are enough to make you pull your hair out. And “building a little bit of housing” is a relatively easy problem to solve in the grand scheme of things! If it’s so hard to do that, imagine how hard it is to accomplish goals like “reforming or expanding or fixing nation-spanning safety-net systems” or “making sure everyone’s civil rights are defended.” None of this is easy. (And no, while California is unique and wacky, it’s not like these general problems can’t be found elsewhere, or in regions run by conservatives rather than liberals.) That’s why I defer on specific policy questions. I would love if the U.S. had something like Medicare for All, and disagree with conservative arguments that a publicly administered healthcare system is inherently worse or less efficient than a profit-driven one. That said, I also recognize the reality of the present system, the size of the health insurance industry, the nearly impossible nature of the political task of instituting M4A, and so on. At a certain age, you need to grow up and realize that there are actual, legitimate obstacles to your perfect-world policies — it’s not simply that people are too dumb to recognize the “truth” of the matter or that your allies haven’t argued loudly or deftly enough about the policies in question. (Opposition to the “Green Lantern theory of politics” is an important idea endorsed by some very smart people.) more
