Babylon Bee understands polls:

https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds-polls-are-only-accurate-when-your-candidate-ahead

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

To what? The neocon days of George Bush? The milquetoast days of Mitt Romney and John McCain?

Gosh, let's hope not.

Preferably another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

Barney Fife had a history of making bad choices. Pepper spray, taser, plenty of other options.. shooting to kill is a bad choice

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

---

Don't necessarily disagree. Would have been good with that. Problem I see is that when you do what she did, in the environment she did it, you lose the benefit of the doubt. In a different part of the building or on a different day, she would have been arrested.

That was NOT the time to challenge for what you are saying. As a Vet, she should have understood situational awareness. The LEO's and Secret Service were being stressed beyond reasonable conditions, with their protectees on the other side of the door. That was stupid, lucky MORE were not shot in those conditions.

boognish_bear said:

---

After Jake Tapper asks about the "residual bad blood" between her and Team Biden, Nancy Pelosi says: "Sometimes you have to take a punch for the children."

She then wonders, "Why are we even talking about it?" prompting Tapper to joke that "they're holding my cat hostage." pic.twitter.com/VzxH1FuwCB

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) August 20, 2024

---

Yes, how dare the legacy media behave like a free press by asking her difficult questions.

Her answer, and Tapper's reaction, says so much.

Lots of polling units are partisan players in the process.

Harris super PAC founder says public polls are too optimistic

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The founder of the main outside spending group backing Kamala Harris' presidential bid says their own opinion polling is less "rosy" than public polls suggest and warned that Democrats
1/3

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) August 20, 2024

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

---

Don't necessarily disagree. Would have been good with that. Problem I see is that when you do what she did, in the environment she did it, you lose the benefit of the doubt. In a different part of the building or on a different day, she would have been arrested.

That was NOT the time to challenge for what you are saying. As a Vet, she should have understood situational awareness. The LEO's and Secret Service were being stressed beyond reasonable conditions, with their protectees on the other side of the door. That was stupid, lucky MORE were not shot in those conditions.

---

You have a shocking disregard for the question of use of deadly force. She was unarmed and posed no threat to the life of anyone - a single female in a small broken window that many men could not have fit thru. Literally, she sneaked past armed SWAT officers who were guarding a locked door against a couple dozen of orderly demonstrators. The cops outside on the thin blue line fighting a sea of thousands had far more clear justified use than the guy who shot her.

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

one of the key premises of neverTrumperism is that he is some kind of specially sinister character who inspires an array of venomous adversaries that other GOP candidates would somehow avoid. That is a spectacularly foolish idea. Dems are never going to say "oh, this guy is acceptable....we'll let things play out without intervention."

Trump has built a new coalition. The next nominee will have to build upon it, not vanquish it.

he idea that we have a candidate who could significantly outperform Trump is silly. All of the forces arraged against him

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

He won't if he can wring one more dollar out of them
Can't wait for the next Trump Bible. Hoping for the NIV

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

---

Don't necessarily disagree. Would have been good with that. Problem I see is that when you do what she did, in the environment she did it, you lose the benefit of the doubt. In a different part of the building or on a different day, she would have been arrested.

That was NOT the time to challenge for what you are saying. As a Vet, she should have understood situational awareness. The LEO's and Secret Service were being stressed beyond reasonable conditions, with their protectees on the other side of the door. That was stupid, lucky MORE were not shot in those conditions.

---

You have a shocking disregard for the question of use of deadly force. She was unarmed and posed no threat to the life of anyone - a single female in a small broken window that many men could not have fit thru. Literally, she sneaked past armed SWAT officers who were guarding a locked door against a couple dozen of orderly demonstrators. The cops outside on the thin blue line fighting a sea of thousands had far more clear justified use than the guy who shot her.

---

She broke and climbed through a window and joined a mob trying to get to elected officials performing an official act. Of course, deadly force was a potential outcome. You think nobody was going to get hurt or killed in that mess? 2 died, 1 rioter and 1 cop. The rioter was there by choice, the cop was just trying to do his job.

YOU have a shocking disregard for the law and the consequences of doing this type of crap. You place LEOs and the SS in that situation, it is amazing the restraint that was shown. It was stupid, irresponsible and criminal for these people to do this. Congress was in session, what they Hell did they expect...

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

---

First of all, the "to" does not belong. Original corrected.

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, southern Democrat elites did, in multiple ways: they guaranteed he would win the election by dividing their party and running a second candidate. They threw a temper tantrum (secession) after he won because they could not tolerate a president who believed in freedom for Americans (ironically, he was not an abolitionist until the south forced his hand during the war), and they fired the first shots of the war at Ft Sumter. That was an act of treason or rebellion and Lincoln responded as any responsible leader would.

His actions were completely constitutional. Later on he did some questionable things, but even the suspension of habeus corpus was completely constitutional.

I listed the best Republican presidents in chronological order.

The fascists attack everyone else as fascist, oblivious to the projection and hypocrisy probably due to ignorance. Most people don't really understand what the term means.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

---

Don't necessarily disagree. Would have been good with that. Problem I see is that when you do what she did, in the environment she did it, you lose the benefit of the doubt. In a different part of the building or on a different day, she would have been arrested.

That was NOT the time to challenge for what you are saying. As a Vet, she should have understood situational awareness. The LEO's and Secret Service were being stressed beyond reasonable conditions, with their protectees on the other side of the door. That was stupid, lucky MORE were not shot in those conditions.

---

You have a shocking disregard for the question of use of deadly force. She was unarmed and posed no threat to the life of anyone - a single female in a small broken window that many men could not have fit thru. Literally, she sneaked past armed SWAT officers who were guarding a locked door against a couple dozen of orderly demonstrators. The cops outside on the thin blue line fighting a sea of thousands had far more clear justified use than the guy who shot her.

---

She broke and climbed through a window and joined a mob trying to get to elected officials performing an official act. Of course, deadly force was a potential outcome. You think nobody was going to get hurt or killed in that mess? 2 died, 1 rioter and 1 cop. The rioter was there by choice, the cop was just trying to do his job.

YOU have a shocking disregard for the law and the consequences of doing this type of crap. You place LEOs and the SS in that situation, it is amazing the restraint that was shown. It was stupid, irresponsible and criminal for these people to do this. Congress was in session, what they Hell did they expect...

---

No, it is you who have a shocking disregard for law and consequences.
Your argument here is "there was a riot at the capitol and we shoot people for that."

Rioting does not warrant use of deadly force.
Rioting at the capitol does not warrant use of deadly force.
Rioting INSIDE the capitol does not warrant use of deadly force.
Use of deadly force is only authorized in specific circumstances, to stop a threat to life or serious bodily harm. And it must be used proximate in space and time. Somebody aims a gun at you, you can shoot; if that person then turns and runs away, you have to stop shooting.

She was alone in that window.
She had no weapon.
The officer did not have a credible fear for his life.
There was no protectee nearby.
He could have engaged with hands or batons (as did the officers outside battling thousands), and pushed her back thru the window or cuffed her where she was.

Her back was inches away from a SWAT officer standing at the door. He did not shoot her. (correct call). Not only that, he heard the shot. He could have presumed it was someone shooting at him and opened fire on the crowd. But he did not do that. (Good call).

You are not thinking very seriously about this. Those who criticize the justification for shooting have a very, very strong point. Roles reversed...Bob Barr would have prosecuted him for shooting a Democrat rioter crawling thru that window.

She was the ONLY person killed in the riot...........

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

To what? The neocon days of George Bush? The milquetoast days of Mitt Romney and John McCain?

Gosh, let's hope not.

---

Yeah, I'm the fool that always supported your candidates. Now I'm over it

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

---

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, southern Democrat elites did

---

We have a civil war thread for this stuff....

But yes Lincoln started the war in 1861....his call for 75,000 volunteers and marching them into the Southern States started the war. And sent more States fleeing out of the Union

[His action spurred four of the "holdout" states-Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas-to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy.]

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession by the States and it does not authorize the President to make war on States.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

You're smarter than this. The Senate Afghan vote was ceremonial. Trump as CIC could have done it anytime, just as Biden did. But, more importantly, I'm focusing now on what Trump has said since then. Specifically, he did not actually intend to withdraw. He has quite clearly stated he would have kept thousands of troops there as a residual force and to operate Bagram. That's not much different than what was already happening. BTW I support that position. But folks like you somehow want to give him credit for a withdrawal.

And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).

I don't understand your focus on the primary now. Your original post said nobody else could get elected. I'm not challenging Trump's dominance in a primary. For a variety of reasons, he has become a hero to about 45% of the party. But Trump-like candidates (i.e., not Trump himself) have not fared well.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

You're smarter than this. The Senate Afghan vote was ceremonial. Trump as CIC could have done it anytime, just as Biden did.

---

Come on now.....

The entire Senate leadership went over to the White House and told him point blank they would not support an Afghan war pull out.

And the Pentagon stymied him at every turn.

[When Trump was in office, Milley had no compunction about standing up to the president on Afghanistan. Axios reports that after the 2020 elections, unbeknown to his national security team, Trump had a presidential decision memorandum drawn up ordering all US forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Jan. 15, 2021. When news reached the Pentagon, Milley was "appalled" and swung into action. In the Oval Office, Milley, national security adviser Robert O'Brien and acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller "all aligned against the plan." They "painted a vivid picture of Kabul falling to the Taliban if US forces withdrew precipitously in the final days of the Trump presidency" and invoked the specter of America's withdrawal from Saigon, warning "this would be Trump's legacy if he rushed to the exit." In the end, they persuaded Trump to leave a residual force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan when he left office.]

Including not obeying his orders when Trump DID order the pull out! (something that is technically Constitutionally illegal to disobey the Commander in Chief of the armed forces)

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/

[President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss, but senior (Pentagon) officials never followed through on the plan, according to testimony released by the congressional January 6 committee on Thursday.]

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).

---

Buddy, he tried to get funding from Congress....they refused to act (but they did authorize billions for Israel and wars in the 3rd world)

He went around them and tried to use discretionary funding to build the Wall.

They sued him to stop it....and the Federal courts sided with the Regime to prevent the border wall from being built.

What else did you want him to do? Declare martial law and use the army to throw the bums out of Congress and install some actual Patriots that would build the wall?

I imagine if he did that you would be screaming about how it was un-Constitutional

[SAN FRANCISCO The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to divert $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border wall is unlawful. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Sierra Club v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging President Trump's use of emergency powers to build a border wall using funds Congress explicitly denied.]

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/appeals-court-rules-trumps-border-wall-illegal-blocks-further-construction

Hmmm......

🚨BREAKING: Nicole Shanahan admits she and RFK are considering dropping out and ENDORSING Trump.

Huge. I don't think she would say this publicly unless it was inevitable.pic.twitter.com/nYyQQLcafa

— Pro America Politics (@Pro__Trading) August 20, 2024

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

You mean the dude who is currently only a convicted felon who was also found guilty of sexual misconduct and caught on tape letting people know what he thought women were for. The guy who actively played a leadership role in that January 6 event and then sit on his butt while many severely injured and some died? Or the idiot showing up at rallies telling tales full of sound and fury but in substance signify nothing?

---

some? Only person who died was Ashley Babbitt. Barney Fife shot her.. same dude who left his gun on the sink in the bathroom before and kept his job. There was a police officer right next to her, it was unnecessary loss of life.

---

The lesson there is don't break in through a window and storm Congress. Or, listen when told a facility is closed. Funny how you put the blame on the Cop, not the person breaking the law.

---

yes, she broke the law. She should've been arrested not shot.

---

Don't necessarily disagree. Would have been good with that. Problem I see is that when you do what she did, in the environment she did it, you lose the benefit of the doubt. In a different part of the building or on a different day, she would have been arrested.

That was NOT the time to challenge for what you are saying. As a Vet, she should have understood situational awareness. The LEO's and Secret Service were being stressed beyond reasonable conditions, with their protectees on the other side of the door. That was stupid, lucky MORE were not shot in those conditions.

---

You have a shocking disregard for the question of use of deadly force. She was unarmed and posed no threat to the life of anyone - a single female in a small broken window that many men could not have fit thru. Literally, she sneaked past armed SWAT officers who were guarding a locked door against a couple dozen of orderly demonstrators. The cops outside on the thin blue line fighting a sea of thousands had far more clear justified use than the guy who shot her.

---

She broke and climbed through a window and joined a mob trying to get to elected officials performing an official act. Of course, deadly force was a potential outcome. You think nobody was going to get hurt or killed in that mess? 2 died, 1 rioter and 1 cop. The rioter was there by choice, the cop was just trying to do his job.

YOU have a shocking disregard for the law and the consequences of doing this type of crap. You place LEOs and the SS in that situation, it is amazing the restraint that was shown. It was stupid, irresponsible and criminal for these people to do this. Congress was in session, what they Hell did they expect...

---

No, it is you who have a shocking disregard for law and consequences.
Your argument here is "there was a riot at the capitol and we shoot people for that."

Rioting does not warrant use of deadly force.
Rioting at the capitol does not warrant use of deadly force.
Rioting INSIDE the capitol does not warrant use of deadly force.
Use of deadly force is only authorized in specific circumstances, to stop a threat to life or serious bodily harm. And it must be used proximate in space and time. Somebody aims a gun at you, you can shoot; if that person then turns and runs away, you have to stop shooting.

She was alone in that window.
She had no weapon.
The officer did not have a credible fear for his life.
There was no protectee nearby.
He could have engaged with hands or batons (as did the officers outside battling thousands), and pushed her back thru the window or cuffed her where she was.

Her back was inches away from a SWAT officer standing at the door. He did not shoot her. (correct call). Not only that, he heard the shot. He could have presumed it was someone shooting at him and opened fire on the crowd. But he did not do that. (Good call).

You are not thinking very seriously about this. Those who criticize the justification for shooting have a very, very strong point. Roles reversed...Bob Barr would have prosecuted him for shooting a Democrat rioter crawling thru that window.

She was the ONLY person killed in the riot...........

---

Yet none of the Officers or Secret Service on site agree. I know, Deep State. Blue protects Blue...

This was not a riot on a street, they were trying to breach Congress in session. They were told not to come inside the building was closed, they were warned when the barricaded the door and they still tried to breach the door. Sorry, this was her fault, not the cop. You don't second guess the people that have to make decisions in the heat of battle on the line. The Cop made a decision based on the situation and information at hand. You don't hang those people to dry after the fact. She should not have been there trying to break into Congress after breaking in and being told to leave.

I can't believe I am having to argue this point. If this was a Dem or an inner City guy, you would be saying they got what they deserve. Probably ANTIFA.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).

---

Buddy, he tried to get funding from Congress....they refused to act (but they did authorize billions for Israel and wars in the 3rd world)

He went around them and tried to use discretionary funding to build the Wall.

They sued him to stop it....and the Federal courts sided with the Regime to prevent the border wall from being built.

What else did you want him to do? Declare martial law and use the army to throw the bums out of Congress and install some actual Patriots that would build the wall?

I imagine if he did that you would be screaming about how it was un-Constitutional

[SAN FRANCISCO The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to divert $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border wall is unlawful. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Sierra Club v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging President Trump's use of emergency powers to build a border wall using funds Congress explicitly denied.]

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/appeals-court-rules-trumps-border-wall-illegal-blocks-further-construction

---

The strongest critique of Trump's effort on the border wall is that it took him +2yrs to figure out how to do it with existing authorizations & funds.

I don't fault a businessman from the outside for not knowing that backdoor existed when he walked into the office. I can criticize his staff for taking so long to find it.

I also do not understand how anyone interested in stopping illegal immigration could find anyone in their lifetime who has done more to stop it. Not one politician of either party ever spent the kind of political capital Trump did on the issue. Not one politician of either party ever accomplished anything remotely close to what he did. They all spent their time & money facilitating/regulating the flow. Not. One. was interested enough in stopping it, for good, when all of them had the opportunity to do so. The DOD pathway he used has been there for a long, long time.

Since IVF treatments entered the news earlier this year, Walz has been repeatedly claiming he & his wife owe their two children to IVF. But today both CNN & the NYT confirm the Walzes did not in fact use IVF.

THREAD: In addition to his military career & drunk driving arrest, there’s another topic about which @Tim_Walz has been lying for political purposes —the conception of his own children. Since IVF treatments entered the news earlier this year, Walz has been repeatedly claiming he… pic.twitter.com/hHdfSsiGaI

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) August 20, 2024