- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 6,020
- Reactions
- 1,656
Not a tweet but then, he has been censored.........
A link to the full transcript of Trumps speech, an interesting read
Trump’s speech that ‘incited’ Capitol riot: Here’s what he said
Trump is accused of ‘incitement of insurrection’ after giving a speech before his supporters stormed the Capitol.www.aljazeera.com
As an individual Trump is very seriously flawed. Classic narcissistic bully is exactly what he is and I've zero time for anyone like that.I just don't get the defending of Trump or the non stop excuses then the follow up with " false equivalence " justifications.
Looking at specific party leaders who lost, well Hillary Clinton and Bill Shorten both came across much the same. Neither seemed like they had too much in common with the ordinary person, both seemed to be threatening more of the same approach of turning their backs on the ordinary workers and taking them for granted whilst pandering to those wanting special treatment.
Classic narcissistic bully is exactly what he is
The article still doesn't get it right.A bit about how the US got to here and where Trump fits. In a small part addresses some of Smurfs points.
From Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” through Barak Obama’s “hope and change,” Democratic leaders embraced the conservative consensus. They championed the corporate trade policies that shipped jobs abroad, while liberal economists mocked those who warned of the consequences. They did little as unions were crushed, as wages stagnated and the price of necessities like health care, education, and housing soared. They shelved antitrust enforcement and touted Wall Street deregulation. And when the resulting financial wilding finally ended in the financial collapse of 2008, the Obama administration bailed out the banks that were responsible, while millions of Americans whom they preyed upon lost their homes and their savings.
Ostracizing Trump and prosecuting those who terrorized the Capitol is imperative, but the survival of this democracy depends not on whether Trump is impeached or disgraced but on whether it can actually work for working people again. If it can’t—and change won’t be easy, because it requires challenging the elites and the entrenched interests of both parties—then Trump is likely to be seen merely as an amateur opening for the full horror show that is yet to come.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-capitol-biden-neolibera...
It's called blind faith mate. The Trump sympathisers that troll this website have extremely myopic views and they can only see what they want to see. It's all part of the "programming" - the very attribute they accuse others of.Like I said I don't get the excuses for Trump non of it makes sense.
The case for Trumps' second impeachment is as feeble as the first.
The case for Trumps' second impeachment is as feeble as the first.
As shown below there is more of a case for Pelosi and Waters to be impeached.
But not a peep from the peanut gallery when any of the cases below occurred. Hypocrites.
In a nutshell that's the problem with politics.From Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” through Barak Obama’s “hope and change,” Democratic leaders embraced the conservative consensus. They championed the corporate trade policies that shipped jobs abroad, while liberal economists mocked those who warned of the consequences. They did little as unions were crushed, as wages stagnated and the price of necessities like health care, education, and housing soared. They shelved antitrust enforcement and touted Wall Street deregulation. And when the resulting financial wilding finally ended in the financial collapse of 2008, the Obama administration bailed out the banks that were responsible, while millions of Americans whom they preyed upon lost their homes and their savings.
You have 1,432 historical and constitutional scholars against you on that one.
This picture sums it up
If it were the Republicans doing it, it would be on the cover of TIME Magazine
If you have nothing to hide - why do this?
Why not double check the results?
I repeat what I have said on here before I'm primarily here for banter and discussion not legalistic argument.I responded to your post claiming inter alia "obvious irregularities" regarding the November elections, and sought from you what they might be.
You offered nothing.
Now you make a baseless claim that I am "trying to disparage <you> with utterly faulty logic."
My posts have made it clear that no amount of evidence is likely to convince rusted-on Trump supporters unless he acknowledged reality and stated unequivocally that he lost the election, fair and square.
If Trump had an ounce of Presidentiality to his being, his latest tweet could have done that.
Can anyone see that happening?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?