Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread

MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
Super weird and tonally inconsistent when you run against Trump four years ago and then he tries to topple your Administration before you’re even sworn in; then you run against him AGAIN and constantly drum beat that he’s an active danger to Democracy and then give him these nice cheery press shots of you both together.

IMG_5013.jpeg

It could easily make people think you weren’t serious about the danger he posed and just said it to try and get votes…
 
Dekafox

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
In regard to the Trump and stopping transition topic, if anyone wants to pick this apart, I was told there's excerpts of Trump talking about eliminating Trans care in it:

As I've said elsewhere, I'm boomer enough I prefer to read, not watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's stuff taken out of context, but I was seeing this get shared around earlier today by friends who would be affected by it, so it might help to either show or debunk that. Should give us something to discuss besides throwing daggers at each other, at least.
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
Pocket said:
The first time around, there were still intelligent people willing to work for him. Especially at the very beginning when all the major appointments were getting made. He's going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Hell, in that respect alone, we're a lot worse off than if he had just won in 2020.
Click to expand...
Say what you will about the deep state, the Departments do know how to operate regardless of their political spokesperson boss. I've never seen any exposure of the meetings the level down there, but I expect they are a lot like when Trump goes to the Pentagon. The other people at the table say, "Oh. No. You can't do that"
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
MrBlud said:
Super weird and tonally inconsistent when you run against Trump four years ago and then he tries to topple your Administration before you’re even sworn in; then you run against him AGAIN and constantly drum beat that he’s an active danger to Democracy and then give him these nice cheery press shots of you both together.

View attachment 24287

It could easily make people think you weren’t serious about the danger he posed and just said it to try and get votes…
Click to expand...
I haven't watched Kamala's concession speech, but the headline I saw said "We will be okay" which was really weird after a campaign about an existential threat to democracy and if you don't believe me ask the generals and his chief of staff and all the people who worked with him.

But I don't know what else she's supposed to say. She sure can't say "Fight like hell"

Edit - Maybe she should have said "Be watchful. Watch his actions. Watch the law and the Constitution. And if you see something, say something. Don't be silent"
 

Monique

Guess whos back
Citizen
Too late for that. Every person Trump has picked has been a minor heart attack. Even some of the conservative folks are getting a little worried by them. Gatz was NOT a popular choice.
 
Corvus

Corvus

Active member
Citizen
Kakistocracy.
 

Ultra Magnus13

Active member
Citizen

Pale Rider said:
Neither of which were done by people with clear political alignments.

One attacker was a registered Republican with mixed views, while the other was unaffiliated and didn’t follow any specific ideology.

In contrast, the January 6 insurrection was driven by Trump supporters who were openly motivated by his rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I hope you have wheel on those goal posts, otherwise you are likely to throw your back out moving them so much.

To review we went from.

Only one side, implied the other side were enemies, and said they would end democracy.

To

Yeah but only one side acted on it.

To

Yeah but those guess were not registered Democrats or openly Harris Biden/Trump fanatics.
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
Nice try, but I'm not moving the goalposts, I’m just stating the facts.

Trump's made a habit of calling his opponents "enemies" and whipping up his base, which led directly to January 6. Biden’s words call out dangerous behaviors, not half the country.

And those attempts on Trump’s life? They weren't driven by political extremism like we saw on January 6, which actually matters if we’re talking about the fallout from divisive rhetoric.

But sure, keep pretending it’s all the same.
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
Magnus, if you want to make a point here, you'll need to connect something that Biden said publicly with a negative consequence. Can you do that?

Go listen to or read Trump's Jan 6 speech. Full disclosure, I have done neither, but I have it on trusted authority that he told them to "Fight like hell" to preserve our democracy. I'm never certain how much of a moron Trump is, so I don't KNOW if he knew he lost the election. He had certainly been told by people who he could've trusted. He told that crowd that the election was being stolen and that Pence had personally failed him and the country was being taken over. Or most of that. It is very easy to see how people who trusted him went and took the action that they took. The way laws are written Trump may be insulated. And certainly he can stop any legal action now, but in a common sense fashion, he definitely formed some part of the motive of all of those people who committed crimes.

Is there anything like that that you can point to with Biden? Someone who can be at all reasonably construed to think they were following his instructions or doing what he wanted them to do?
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
Ultra Magnus13 said:
Only one side, implied the other side were enemies, and said they would end democracy.

To

Yeah but only one side acted on it.

To

Yeah but those guess were not registered Democrats or openly Harris Biden/Trump fanatics.
Click to expand...

It could be generally true that both Biden and Trump have been almost equally guilty of telling their supporters that the other was dangerous to democracy and that we've only seen the violence that we've seen because Trump has a lot of violent morons among his supporters and Biden's are more intelligent and peaceful. There is a level of truth to that, though I typed it tongue in cheek, because if that is NOT the case, then that middle line does not represent moving goal posts. If only one side acted on it and there isn't a very stark difference in the sides when it comes to being able to keep control of their moronic violent impulses, then it does imply that there is a real difference in what the leadership is saying.

As to the last moved goalpost there, it is just bunk. The first shooter had checked both of their schedules and went to shoot at the one that came most conveniently located. He wasn't trying to save democracy from either of them. He was trying to show how powerful he was with a gun. The second one went to shoot Trump because of his position on Ukraine. Trump is pretty vocal about it. Biden and Kamala didn't lie about it. Trump unintentionally instigated that one himself.
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
I was thinking of Rudy Giuliani today because I was thinking that for the last few months Elon Musk should've been thinking of Rudy Giuliani. And Michael Cohen, of course. Trump is fire. No one touches him long without getting burned.
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
That might have been useful advice before, but Trump is now going to have the power to pardon them both. And while I know he doesn't reward people for their loyalty, he is in the habit of using pardons to send a message and to put people he likes back into power; see Joe Arpaio.
 

Axaday

Well-known member
Citizen
Pocket said:
That might have been useful advice before, but Trump is now going to have the power to pardon them both. And while I know he doesn't reward people for their loyalty, he is in the habit of using pardons to send a message and to put people he likes back into power; see Joe Arpaio.
Click to expand...
He cannot undo much of the harm Rudy has had.
 
Anonymous X

Anonymous X

Well-known member
Citizen
M. Virion said:
Deathy didn't come into this thread in good faith. He came in complaining about the title, he even said he wasn't concerned about the content of the thread.

That doesn't read as someone wanting to engage or discuss his "opposing views" - it reads as someone who doesn't want to see words that upset him, and I doubt he had any intention of interacting with this thread past that.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of this.

Honestly, it is better that Deathy flounced before he got comfortable and started throwing around slurs, openly wishing minority Allsparkers dead and so on. Never let a deadly infection spread untreated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom