Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

Bigots like Sam will make any excuse and imagine they make a compelling case.

Easier than admitting they are malicious frauds.

(In Sam's case, he's willing to falsely accuse others in hopes that will deflect attention from him)

Sad, really, but a lot of them have turned into mini-Cuomo's and mini-Smollet's.

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So I am straight here, why then did you disagree with the choice to vote for Trump in 2020?

It appears that, based on your answers here, the actions of Trump surrounding the election results and Jan. 6 form the bulwark (if not outright structure) of your opposition to Trump. That is fine and good (debate surrounding election integrity, follow up from Trump and others aside), but I am missing the link back to his actual policies or presidency.

It is fine to use post-election events to justify a non-Trump position now and in the future, but those activities cannot justifiably be a basis to post hoc change impact of his presidency. To take it a step further, such reasons cannot, in my mind, be the main basis for speculation about how Trump would handle the current situation, since all of the post-election world would have been different and Trump likely would not have done/said the bombastic things he did (or that the media said he did).

Finally, to the bolded above, if that is your basis for voting, then who have you voted for the last 20 years?

---

I disagreed in 2020 because of Trump's overall handling of the pandemic and his encouragement of conspiracy theories and misinformation (I did give him credit for the vaccine). In the last 20 years I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and the Constitution Party.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So...you believe that policies which promote or contribute to open borders, hyper-inflation, higher cost of living, unaffiordable housing, unaffordable gas prices, a genderless society, labor shortages, and DEFCON 3 are preferable to Trump.

Huh.

I can think of reasons other than supporting the vanity of a man that one would prefer Trump's policies over those I mentioned (as I am sure can most reasonable, pragmatic people), but I guess we can agree to disagree,

---

I prefer Trump's policies. I won't condone violence in pursuit of those policies, and at this point I think a vote for Trump is condoning violence. He's completely without remorse.

---

We have common ground here, though I wouldn't agree that voting Trump is condoning violence if he's the candidate (let's hope he's not).

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So I am straight here, why then did you disagree with the choice to vote for Trump in 2020?

It appears that, based on your answers here, the actions of Trump surrounding the election results and Jan. 6 form the bulwark (if not outright structure) of your opposition to Trump. That is fine and good (debate surrounding election integrity, follow up from Trump and others aside), but I am missing the link back to his actual policies or presidency.

It is fine to use post-election events to justify a non-Trump position now and in the future, but those activities cannot justifiably be a basis to post hoc change impact of his presidency. To take it a step further, such reasons cannot, in my mind, be the main basis for speculation about how Trump would handle the current situation, since all of the post-election world would have been different and Trump likely would not have done/said the bombastic things he did (or that the media said he did).

Finally, to the bolded above, if that is your basis for voting, then who have you voted for the last 20 years?

---

I disagreed in 2020 because of Trump's overall handling of the pandemic and his encouragement of conspiracy theories and misinformation (I did give him credit for the vaccine). In the last 20 years I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and the Constitution Party.

---

So spin than out farther, what could Trump have (realistically) done better with Covid, and what misinformation did he spread that had any impact on the course the virus took? Several "conspiracy theories" of April 2020 have been shown to be (a) plausible to an extent not typical of traditional "Conspiracy theories, (b) partially or substantially corroborated (e.g. Wuhan lab being likely source of initial transmission/leak; US was providing funding, etc.) or (c) remain subject to ongoing debate.

More importantly, which of the 2020 candidates would have done better?

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So I am straight here, why then did you disagree with the choice to vote for Trump in 2020?

It appears that, based on your answers here, the actions of Trump surrounding the election results and Jan. 6 form the bulwark (if not outright structure) of your opposition to Trump. That is fine and good (debate surrounding election integrity, follow up from Trump and others aside), but I am missing the link back to his actual policies or presidency.

It is fine to use post-election events to justify a non-Trump position now and in the future, but those activities cannot justifiably be a basis to post hoc change impact of his presidency. To take it a step further, such reasons cannot, in my mind, be the main basis for speculation about how Trump would handle the current situation, since all of the post-election world would have been different and Trump likely would not have done/said the bombastic things he did (or that the media said he did).

Finally, to the bolded above, if that is your basis for voting, then who have you voted for the last 20 years?

---

I want reasonable choices! Trump vs Hillary! Trump vs Biden? Abrams? Harris? Buttigieg? Trump? Cruz?

I am sick of fatally flawed candidates. I can't remember the last good one! Maybe Lieberman? Dole? Bradley? Kemp?

I like Pompeo, Haley, Christy this time around that seem to be not Party-slaves. On the left, Hogan? I may be dead wrong on all of these, just my thoughts today, may change tomorrow...

I know going far back here. Just at a loss for someone that will put party aside and get it done for the Country. I really thought going in that was going to be one of Trump's best attributes not caring about Party, boy was I wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So I am straight here, why then did you disagree with the choice to vote for Trump in 2020?

It appears that, based on your answers here, the actions of Trump surrounding the election results and Jan. 6 form the bulwark (if not outright structure) of your opposition to Trump. That is fine and good (debate surrounding election integrity, follow up from Trump and others aside), but I am missing the link back to his actual policies or presidency.

It is fine to use post-election events to justify a non-Trump position now and in the future, but those activities cannot justifiably be a basis to post hoc change impact of his presidency. To take it a step further, such reasons cannot, in my mind, be the main basis for speculation about how Trump would handle the current situation, since all of the post-election world would have been different and Trump likely would not have done/said the bombastic things he did (or that the media said he did).

Finally, to the bolded above, if that is your basis for voting, then who have you voted for the last 20 years?

---

I disagreed in 2020 because of Trump's overall handling of the pandemic and his encouragement of conspiracy theories and misinformation (I did give him credit for the vaccine). In the last 20 years I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and the Constitution Party.

---

So spin than out farther, what could Trump have (realistically) done better with Covid, and what misinformation did he spread that had any impact on the course the virus took? Several "conspiracy theories" of April 2020 have been shown to be (a) plausible to an extent not typical of traditional "Conspiracy theories, (b) partially or substantially corroborated (e.g. Wuhan lab being likely source of initial transmission/leak; US was providing funding, etc.) or (c) remain subject to ongoing debate.

More importantly, which of the 2020 candidates would have done better?

---

Trump was responsible more than any other individual for downplaying the threat, discouraging mask use, and sowing mistrust of medical and scientific experts which led to widespread paranoia about the vaccine. He could have shared more information among federal agencies and with the states. He could have implemented a national plan, which was reportedly developed but then abandoned because he saw no political benefit. The origin of the virus is important to understand going forward, but it was irrelevant at the time. The problem with his emphasis on China isn't that it was a conspiracy theory per se but that he used it to create fear and division and to distract from the real tasks at hand.

I think any of the Dem candidates would have done most of these things differently. I haven't given much thought to their relative merits since I wasn't voting for any of them.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

Sam Lowry said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

So Trump is Hitler and Stalin is Biden in your statement. I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's just a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As much as I dislike both Biden and Trump, each many has some redeeming qualities.

Has nothing to do with binary thinking. It has to do with which fallible leader you think is better for the country. Many factors go into that decision, but we only have two viable options at the end of the day. For me, it's conservative policies that left us more prosperous and living at peace with the world. You prefer the current **** show.

---

I refuse to accept a false dilemma. What I prefer is a patriotic conservatism which values the long term good of the country over the vanity of one man. If that's not a viable option, then we need to send the GOP a message and tell them to make it viable next time. Withholding support is a valid and hopefully productive exercise of choice.

---

Speaking of false dilemmas, you believe a vote for Trump was favoring the vanity of a man over the long term good of the country?

Really? Huh.

---

I believe it would be, knowing what we know now. I've never bashed anyone for voting for him in 2020, even though I disagree with the choice.

---

So I am straight here, why then did you disagree with the choice to vote for Trump in 2020?

It appears that, based on your answers here, the actions of Trump surrounding the election results and Jan. 6 form the bulwark (if not outright structure) of your opposition to Trump. That is fine and good (debate surrounding election integrity, follow up from Trump and others aside), but I am missing the link back to his actual policies or presidency.

It is fine to use post-election events to justify a non-Trump position now and in the future, but those activities cannot justifiably be a basis to post hoc change impact of his presidency. To take it a step further, such reasons cannot, in my mind, be the main basis for speculation about how Trump would handle the current situation, since all of the post-election world would have been different and Trump likely would not have done/said the bombastic things he did (or that the media said he did).

Finally, to the bolded above, if that is your basis for voting, then who have you voted for the last 20 years?

---

I disagreed in 2020 because of Trump's overall handling of the pandemic and his encouragement of conspiracy theories and misinformation (I did give him credit for the vaccine). In the last 20 years I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and the Constitution Party.

---

So spin than out farther, what could Trump have (realistically) done better with Covid, and what misinformation did he spread that had any impact on the course the virus took? Several "conspiracy theories" of April 2020 have been shown to be (a) plausible to an extent not typical of traditional "Conspiracy theories, (b) partially or substantially corroborated (e.g. Wuhan lab being likely source of initial transmission/leak; US was providing funding, etc.) or (c) remain subject to ongoing debate.

More importantly, which of the 2020 candidates would have done better?

---

Trump was responsible more than any other individual for downplaying the threat, discouraging mask use, and sowing mistrust of medical and scientific experts which led to widespread paranoia about the vaccine. He could have shared more information among federal agencies and with the states. He could have implemented a national plan, which was reportedly developed but then abandoned because he saw no political benefit. The origin of the virus is important to understand going forward, but it was irrelevant at the time. The problem with his emphasis on China isn't that it was a conspiracy theory per se but that he used it to create fear and division and to distract from the real tasks at hand.

I think any of the Dem candidates would have done most of these things differently. I haven't given much thought to their relative merits since I wasn't voting for any of them.

---

How can you say that? He led the charge for a vaccine and created an environment to make it happen quickly. He spoke numerous times about the only way to get back to normal was a vaccine and believed that Operation Warp Speed was one of the biggest accomplishments of his Presidency.

You don't remember Harris saying she wouldn't trust a Trump vaccine???

Not to mention the ventilators, the USN Mercy and Hope being sent to NY and CA. He stopped flights from China first. He got vaccinated and went to Walter Reed to be treated with therapeutics.

Sorry, those are not the actions of someone trying to undermine medicine and science. How about these gems.

But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I'm not taking it. - Kamala Harris 10/7/20

The way he (Trump) talks about the vaccine is not particularly rational. He's talking about it being ready, he's going to talk about moving it quicker than the scientists think it should be moved … . People don't believe that he's telling the truth, therefore they're not at all certain they're going to take the vaccine. And one more thing: If and when the vaccine comes, it's not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done. - Biden 8/6/20

If the president announced tomorrow we have a vaccine, would you take it?' Only if it was completely transparent, that other experts in the country could look at it, only if we knew all of what went into it. Because so far, nothing he's told us has been true. - Biden 9/7/20

Sorry, Trump was behind the vaccine and his process to get it to the people as soon as possible. All this distrust of the CDC and Medicine started with Democrats NOT WANTING TRUMP TO HAVE A SUCCESS. All those statements and others are carefully worded to blame Trump, but the also put a negative tinge on the vaccine. All on the Dems for this one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

I don't disagree with any of this, and feel similar to you about the man. The main difference in our thinking is you believe that the current **** show that got us into the myriad of both foreign and domestic problems we've experienced this past year is actually preferable to the relative prosperity and peace with the world we enjoyed under Trump, despite his many character flaws.

And that thought process, especially from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable.

---

I'm not an all-or-nothing thinker. I mostly preferred the conditions under Trump, but they came at a cost I'm not willing to pay again.

---

As I said, that thought process, from someone who likes to think of himself as conservative, is rather remarkable

---

Conservatives need not be binary thinkers. Hitler killed a lot less people than Stalin, but that doesn't mean either of them were good.

---

And one of them was our ally

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

---

I don't. The media campaign against him for his entire presidency killed any chance he had. Joe Biden barely campaigned because the media had done it for him. All he had to do was hide until Election Day. Without a fair media, there is no possibility of a fair election.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Ever think he behaved like he did because he was attacked from day 1. Never got the benefit of the doubt, never got credit and was always placed on the defensive. By the time we got to Jan 6th, the guy was spoiling for a fight. He couldn't have a press conference to introduce the "Sound of Music" without being called a Nazi sympathizer. He tried early on to be diplomatic and that was used against him, see Charlottesville. Read the full comment, not the clip. Remember, he left Hollywood to run. His show was on for 15 years or so? You tell me he wasn't liked in Hollywood and they kept his show for 15 years??

The Dems and media created the Trump you see now. He thought going in he could cut deals with both sides. Look at the early meetings in 2016.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

---

I don't. The media campaign against him for his entire presidency killed any chance he had. Joe Biden barely campaigned because the media had done it for him. All he had to do was hide until Election Day. Without a fair media, there is no possibility of a fair election.

---

Who was the last Republican president to be treated fairly by the MSM?

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

---

I don't. The media campaign against him for his entire presidency killed any chance he had. Joe Biden barely campaigned because the media had done it for him. All he had to do was hide until Election Day. Without a fair media, there is no possibility of a fair election.

---

Who was the last Republican president to be treated fairly by the MSM?

---

Tradition is no excuse for corruption.

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

---

I don't. The media campaign against him for his entire presidency killed any chance he had. Joe Biden barely campaigned because the media had done it for him. All he had to do was hide until Election Day. Without a fair media, there is no possibility of a fair election.

---

Who was the last Republican president to be treated fairly by the MSM?

---

If not Reagan, then Eisenhower.

Quote:

---

Osodecentx: "Who was the last Republican president to be treated fairly by the MSM?"

WhiteTrash: "If not Reagan, then Eisenhower."

---

Reagan was not treated fairly by the MSM. He simply outwitted them time and time again.

That's where I disagree with those who say Trump should have 'risen above' the noise. He was not a career politician, who used years to practice the double-speak that so many use to avoid or deflect attacks, and he was not overly concerned with the media image, like Dole or Romney or Bush, who would let the media say anything in the naive hope he would be seen as 'likable.

Trump knew from the 'go' that he would never get a fair shake from the media. Everything has been used against him, even and especially when taken out of context, exaggerated, or in some case out and out lied about him to make him look bad.

Trump lacked Reagan's eloquence, sure. So did everyone else in the GOP post-1988.

But he did most of what he said he would do, and did his level-best on the rest. Only idiots, haters and Democrats think style points matter.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

But it's true. When we really dig into the anti-Trump opinions and compare them to the facts it all boils down to an emotional dislike of Trump's personality rather than ANY policy of his administration. The worst thing about Trump was the behavior of leftists and neocons in response to his existence.

---

You may have repeated it so many times that you believe it's true. When you really dig into the anti-Trump opinions, you'll find that they're not based on emotion nor are they limited to leftists and neocons.

---

No, it's true. His policies worked. With an unbiased media Trump easily wins re-election, but the vast majority of media went full democrat and hid or outright lied and dismissed damning evidence against Biden while perpetuating leftist accusations against Trump. I could sit here and list those lies, from "he said all Mexicans are rapists!" to "he colluded with RUSSIA!" to "he said Nazis were very fine people!" "He made fun of a handicapped reporter!" to "there were bounties on American soldiers!" ad infinitum. "If true..." was a caveat in the media every day in their hit pieces on Trump. Now we are to the "If Trump..." level of using imagination to damn Orange Man Bad. The one common thread is it's all leftist imagination using hypotheticals to justify Trump hate, because the results of his policies don't lie.

---

I'm well aware of the benefits of his policies and the fact that the media lied about him. I said all of that at the time. I was also aware of the defects in his character and hoped he would rise above them once in office. I take no joy in acknowledging it, but the cold reality is that he failed to do so. It's his supporters' emotions that prevent them from seeing that.

---

The problem is those "defects in character" were often created by his detractors and spread by a willing media and they were usually focused on his "mean tweets." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to listen to the man speak. I was forced to watch the entirety of his speeches thanks to the rampant parsing of his words and out of context quotes used against him. While watching him speak publicly is akin to nails on a chalkboard for me it was truly revealing in showing how corrupt the mainstream media truly was when they later reported on it. It's hard for people to admit they were duped. I get it. I've been wrong before, too. But with the revelations in the Hunter laptop story, the results of the Durham investigation, the results of democrat leadership in our every day lives and in the world theater, we see clearly democrats and leftists have been very wrong for the last 5 years. With all this preponderance of evidence saying as much all discussion of Trump now devolves into emotional personal dislike of Trump and hypotheticals are used as justification.

---

The short version of this is "but but what about...?" It may be true, but it's off point.

---

Read it again. The short version is "The left has been proven repeatedly to be liars. Trump has repeatedly been vindicated since leaving office. The ONLY argument against Trump that leftists and neocons have remaining are emotional arguments based on hypotheticals."

---

Trump's conduct since the election isn't hypothetical, nor is the damage it's done. Reasonable conservatives, not just leftists and neocons, can see that for what it is.

---

Trump's reactions to the election were what I'd expect from a spoiled trust fund kid who grew up into a brash business goon that got genuinely ****ed over by the media and corrupt establishment for four years and watched as the elections went down exactly as he predicted. He said he would be up and then all the sudden a bunch of votes for Biden would be found. In many places that came true. That was enough to convince him the fix was in and he is not a good loser to begin with. That in no way negates what he did as president both in pressure situations and in general. We KNOW what he did, we KNOW what his policies wrought and every day we are learning the truth about what he did NOT do, despite the claims made by the left. His temper tantrum over losing doesn't change any of that.

---

The election didn't go as he predicted or as he claimed. This is the key point. His narrative wasn't just everyday political or legal spin. It was utter delusion from the furthest reaches of conspiracy world, and he persisted not only to the point of encouraging violence but even to this day. Washington is full of spoiled politicians who didn't grow up to do this. In fact the total number who did this, other than Trump, is zero.

---

But it did. Polls even closed while he was ahead and reopened with him behind. The mail-in votes were predicted to heavily sway Biden, which explains why Trump had the leads early before mail-ins were tabulated. For Trump the optics reinforced everything he had predicted, whether he was right or not on the reality of it. He plainly said to demonstrate peacefully more than once, but his tantrum was certainly part of what lead to the photo op in the capitol on January 6th. That doesn't in any way take away from how he ran the country and what he made plainly clear, internationally, was acceptable and what was not. After four years of being spied on and lied about from the media to the fbi, why would he trust anyone? Would YOU trust the people who made a living out of demonizing you and lying every day about you?

---

It's his responsibility to understand the reality and not just the optics if he's going to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power over it. He litigated the issue extensively, as was his right, and the courts ruled accordingly. As for why he should trust them, many of the judges were Republicans, including some that Trump appointed himself. If he can't trust his own judges then that reflects even more poorly on him.

---

As you said, he followed legal avenues. After being impeached twice by democrats why on earth would he trust them to run their districts honestly? Again, he knows he was railroaded and slandered by these same people. The judges that agreed or disagreed came later, often with dismissals over standing being lauded by that same media as evidence of a lost case based on merit. Again, why would he trust them?

---

The second impeachment wasn't until after he rejected the ruling of the courts and encouraged an act of sedition at the Capitol. Again, many of those judges were Republicans and could at least be trusted to be impartial. One of Trump's biggest beefs was with the Georgia Secretary of State, who was a Republican. These people weren't the evil leftist media. The fact that Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings has zero relevance here. And the idea that courts dismissed the cases without due consideration is another debunked myth. The truth is that Trump's claims were far more modest in court than in his public rhetoric, and judges went out of their way to address the substantive evidence even when they didn't have to.

---

The entirety of the lies and slander that has gone on for years by the media against Trump was simply " Rachel Maddow may have hurt Trump's feelings"? Ignoring such context is the only way to come to your conclusions.

---

No, it's an example. Whether it's Maddow or the entirety of the media's treatment of him, none of it is relevant "context." It simply has nothing to do with the fact that he lost on a bogus claim and tried to burn down the party and the country in response. You're excusing him as a naive parent would excuse a sociopathic teenager.

---

His well earned distrust of media and establishment politicians is far from irrelevant to the discussion of why Trump behaved as he did. It's not reasonable to judge someone's reaction without looking at what they've reacted to. That just shows bias.

---

Trump was horribly mistreated by the media, there is no doubt in my mind. But every Republican president is treated that way by MSM. Trump was unable to rise above it. I think Trump could have won in spite of Covid if he had been emotionally stable

---

I don't. The media campaign against him for his entire presidency killed any chance he had. Joe Biden barely campaigned because the media had done it for him. All he had to do was hide until Election Day. Without a fair media, there is no possibility of a fair election.

---

Who was the last Republican president to be treated fairly by the MSM?

---

Tradition is no excuse for corruption.

---

No, only for insurrection.

Biden and Harris seemed to be expressing doubt about Trump, not the scientific establishment itself. I don't know the context of the Biden quotes, but Harris at least made it clear that if the proper experts signed off on it, she's be first in line for the vaccine. Was she irresponsible to say what she said? Certainly, but again it was irresponsible within normal bounds, one politician attacking another. It doesn't really compare with Trump's almost daily trashing of Fauci and his ilk. Nor did it have much effect. It may have swayed some of the minority population for a while, but their vaccine skepticism dissipated fairly quickly. The real entrenched resistance is very much a Republican phenomenon.

Appearing unconcerned with his media image is part of his media image. No doubt he works as hard on it as any other politician (and probably harder since he doesn't waste much time on actual politics).

Sam Lowry said:

---

Appearing unconcerned with his media image is part of his media image. No doubt he works as hard on it as any other politician (and probably harder since he doesn't waste much time on actual politics).

---

Read Barr's book. Trump cared a lot (but all politicians do, of course)

.@TomCottonAR had a chance last week to back his words with actions by voting for the security assistance for Ukraine that the President announced yesterday.

He and 30 of his fellow Senate Republicans voted against that money. https://t.co/yyZ3BQHL0j

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 18, 2022

The aid was <1% of an inflation-busting $1.5 trillion budget.

It should have been sent *before* the invasion, but Biden blocked it to avoid offending Putin. @Pressec, why is Biden still buying Russian oil? https://t.co/58WTa1ygFV

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) March 18, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

.@TomCottonAR had a chance last week to back his words with actions by voting for the security assistance for Ukraine that the President announced yesterday.

He and 30 of his fellow Senate Republicans voted against that money. https://t.co/yyZ3BQHL0j

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 18, 2022

The aid was <1% of an inflation-busting $1.5 trillion budget.

It should have been sent *before* the invasion, but Biden blocked it to avoid offending Putin. @Pressec, why is Biden still buying Russian oil? https://t.co/58WTa1ygFV

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) March 18, 2022

---

Little Miss Pissyface sending out mean tweets again….

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

It was so smart err, stupid err, diabolically clever how Trump timed inflation, especially gas prices, to start its parabolic move up almost the day Biden took office. It was even more amazing how Trump made Biden screw up the Afghan withdrawal and abandon Americans there.

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

Keep telling yourself that, J.R.

Fewer and fewer adults believe that bilge anymore.

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

You said similar things repeatedly prior to the 2020 election .

Yet voted for Trump .

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

It was so smart err, stupid err, diabolically clever how Trump timed inflation, especially gas prices, to start its parabolic move up almost the day Biden took office. It was even more amazing how Trump made Biden screw up the Afghan withdrawal and abandon Americans there.

---

The guy is a genius!

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

Trump didnt do any of that.. 81 million morons did that, the lying media did that, the millions spent by private people to run elections in swing states did that(this is who funded the mules who ballot harvested as witness testified to doing in GA- this is how Trump lost and how the GA senators were flipped)

He is a blow hard, but anybody who voted feelings over policy is a moron and deserves this mess and the harsh critizism they get for voting for basement dummy.

J.R. said:

---

I hope you people really understand that the Trump legacy was that he lost 1) Senate 2)Congress, 3 and the presidency. The reason....he isn't smart, and is only interested in himself and his ego and he a terrible human. So, lets not ***** about dems, politics, the war, taxes, ect, cuz Trumpy effed all that up.

---

By that way of thinking, he shares the same legacy with Clinton, Bush and Obama. About to share it with Biden too