FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Well the do...and very few officers saw the shooting in question....but there were some behind Ashley who nearly got shot themselves by the brash decision of the officer to discharge his weapon.

(also begs the question why shoot a protestor who has officers right behind her...they did not feel the need to shoot her)........watch the video....cops nearly catch her as she is killed they are so close to her. WHY FIRE!



And Congress was in fact not in session...it had been suspended.

They killed a woman (a US Veteran with a clean record and unarmed) for the crime of trying to enter a taxpayer owned room.

Everyone can watch the video....the officer in question was not in danger....I would not be surprise if he actually did not intent to fire at all and just messed up.



(*It speaks volumes that given the opportunity to shoot and kill BLM rioters during the summer months of violence they police in DC did not......given the opportunity to kill a right-wing coded protestors they did...and the Media celebrated the murder of an unarmed woman...sad and evil)

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, we second guess cops all the time for use of deadly force. We put them in jail quite often for unjustified shootings. The decision not to prosecute this officer was HIGHLY political. It would have undermined the insurrection narrative.

Hundreds of officers on site. Tens of thousands of protestors. Hundreds of rioters. And the only person shot was a woman crawling thru a window in an area not at risk of being overrun....an area being effectively defended by armed officers. There were officers injured in hand to hand combat with overwhelming crowds. None of them considered deadly force necessary. Just this one dude presented with one female demonstrator crawling thru a window so small few men could have fit thru. She didn't threaten him. She didn't threaten anyone else (no one else was in the area). She was unarmed.

It is very, very difficult to square this shooting with the standards established with deadly force adjudications across the country. She was literally a threat of death or bodily harm to NO ONE at the time she was shot. The only thing that saved this cop's arse is that prosecuting him would have complicated Democrat efforts to push the insurrection narrative.

You not not thinking critically here.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative, but there was definitely a nexxus between Authorization and use. We need more problem solving like that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

yep. he's got bad hair, a big ass, and an undisciplined mouth. But he did a lot of things right in office. Keeping his political promises is why he secured the nomination in 2024 and why he will likely be re-elected. No Republican leader in my lifetime EVER worked so hard to do the things he promised to do.

NM was trending toward toss-up before Biden bowed out........

New Mexico is in play. We see the numbers.

There is going to be massive support from Republicans now.

Come join us as we open yet another Logcabin chapter! https://t.co/YqJXIeLTkI

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2024

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]

---

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.]

---

Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.

What it did do is give Biden cover for his historically inept withdrawal.

But, again, the most important point, by far, is that he now says he never intended to pull out to begin with.

sombear said:

---

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]

---

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.]

---

Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.

---

The facts are just something you really don't want to deal with.

The machine in D.C. worked tirelessly to prevent the withdraw.

And when given a Constitutional order by their Commander in Chief they did not follow it.

This is all to you evidence that Trump is the problem.....not an entrench and corrupt system in DC

Wow

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative,

---

And the Federal Courts still struck him down.

Because at the end of the day DC wants endless mass immigration and will throw up any and all road blocks to prevent any President from stopping it....

"The peasants must flow"

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I didn't say he didn't try, although he could have done far more.

And the fact is he offered amnesty, which his supporters hate talking about.

As to his effectiveness, he spent $15 billion, and that produced 50 miles of new wall.

---

Better than nothing.

And if Congress was interesting in actual securing our borders vs just funneling hundreds of billions to Israel and Ukraine we could have the whole thing built for $18-$20 billion.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative,

---

And the Federal Courts still struck him down.

Because at the end of the day DC wants endless mass immigration and will throw up any and all road blocks to prevent any President from stopping it....

"The peasants must flow"

---

I thought the Military funding for Defense of the Border went through. Hmm, haven't really tracked it. There were probably multiple sets of funds.



Supreme Court sides with Trump on border wall money - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Osodecentx said:

---

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

---

Not sure what you mean here. I thought you liked neocons and milquetoast Republicans.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

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]

---

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.]

---

Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.

---

The facts are just something you really don't want to deal with.

The machine in D.C. worked tirelessly to prevent the withdraw

And when given a Constitutional order by their Commander in Chief they did not follow it.

This is all to you evidence that Trump is the problem.....not an entrench and corrupt system in DC

Wow

---

While I totally disagree, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that he never intended to leave Afghanistan.

---

That is simply where we disagree

He was the 1st major candidate to call for us to get out, he got attack endlessly from our foreign policy blob for wanting to leave, he was attacked by both Republican Senators and Democratic congressmen for wanting to leave, he was attacked by the Corporate Media for wanting to leave. He drew up plans to leave (stopped by the Senate and the Pentagon), and then ordered a withdraw (that the Pentagon brass refused to follow)

You ignore all this to say he somehow really really wanted to stay in Afghanistan

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative,

---

And the Federal Courts still struck him down.

Because at the end of the day DC wants endless mass immigration and will throw up any and all road blocks to prevent any President from stopping it....

"The peasants must flow"

---

I thought the Military funding for Defense of the Border went through. Hmm, haven't really tracked it. There were probably multiple sets of funds.



Supreme Court sides with Trump on border wall money - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

---

Lower courts of course went against him.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/trump-loses-border-wall-case-cannot-use-military-funding-build-illegal-border

Finally SCOUTS in 2020 after years of litigation- the way you slow down a border wall you don't want built- in a 5-4 decision let it go through.

And of course Biden got in and canceled the contracts on Construction.

Sombear then blames Trump.....classic

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/30/biden-terminates-border-wall-construction-485123

[Biden terminating border wall construction contracts

The move is another step toward unwinding one of Donald Trump's signature initiatives.

In one of his first acts in office, Biden halted progress on the border wall a signature policy of former President Donald Trump by freezing money for border wall construction projects and terminating Trump's national emergency declaration along the border.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

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]

---

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.]

---

Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.

---

The facts are just something you really don't want to deal with.

The machine in D.C. worked tirelessly to prevent the withdraw

And when given a Constitutional order by their Commander in Chief they did not follow it.

This is all to you evidence that Trump is the problem.....not an entrench and corrupt system in DC

Wow

---

While I totally disagree, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that he never intended to leave Afghanistan.

---

That is simply where we disagree

He was the 1st major candidate to call for us to get out, he got attack endlessly from our foreign policy blob for wanting to leave, he was attacked by both Republican Senators and Democratic congressmen for wanting to leave, he was attacked by the Corporate Media for wanting to leave. He drew up plans to leave (stopped by the Senate and the Pentagon), and then ordered a withdraw (that the Pentagon brass refused to follow)

You ignore all this to say he somehow really really wanted to stay in Afghanistan

---

He has stated multiple times in this campaign that his withdrawal plan included a residual force and keeping Bagram. You're not arguing with me but rather with Trump.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Lincoln absolutely did NOT start the war. It began at Ft Sumter and he was in Washington at the time. This is historical fact. You can misstate the events as many times as you like but it will always be false. When Lincoln called for volunteers, acting as commander in chief, he was reacting to a military threat to the country and fulfilling his constitutional duty. But the war had already begun.

Blaming Lincoln is like saying FDR started the war with Japan on December 8, 1941 with his speech before Congress while completely ignoring what happened at Pearl Harbor the day before.

The constitution does not forbid secession probably because the Founding Fathers never imagined it would happen. Doesn't matter. The constitution does authorize the commander in chief to respond militarily to all threats, domestic or foreign. Actually, it's his sworn obligation as president. America had come under attack and he had to respond accordingly.

The constitution does not authorize abortion either but it does protect life, liberty, & property with due process.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

yep. he's got bad hair, a big ass, and an undisciplined mouth. But he did a lot of things right in office. Keeping his political promises is why he secured the nomination in 2024 and why he will likely be re-elected. No Republican leader in my lifetime EVER worked so hard to do the things he promised to do.

---

No Democrat either.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Lincoln absolutely did NOT start the war.

Blaming Lincoln is like saying FDR started the war with Japan on December 8, 1941 with his speech before Congress while completely ignoring what happened at Pearl Harbor the day before.

The constitution does not forbid secession probably because the Founding Fathers never imagined it would happen. Doesn't matter. The constitution does authorize the commander in chief to respond militarily to all threats, domestic or foreign. Actually, it's his sworn obligation as president. America had come under attack and he had to respond accordingly.

---

Geeze bud there is literally a whole civil war thread for this kind of talk.

And yes the Founding Fathers absolutely thought about the idea of secession....that is why it is NOT forbidden in the U.S. Constitution.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500/replies

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."- The Kenosha Democrat

"there was no provision in (U.S.) Constitution that prohibits a state from seceding from the union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state... today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)

Still trying for the gotcha..

HOLY SHLIT

A reporter just asked Trump why he came to a town "linked to white supremacy"

Wait for his response 🔥💀🔥 pic.twitter.com/PZn8qWM9Aa

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 20, 2024

Trump had a good day in Michigan:

Democrat MAIL-IN Requests (on this date in 2020 vs 2024)

Philadelphia
2020: 129,652
2024: 92,824
-36,828 (28.5%)

Allegheny (Pittsburgh)

2020: 129,093
2024: 106,961
-22,132 (17.14%)

Thats not good for Dems

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Lincoln certainly initiated the Civil War.

But the winners write the vast majority of the history books and our public doesn't care irregardles.

The betting markets have swung back to Trump as a slight favorite

Trump is back on top. pic.twitter.com/A5IaS8aNTd

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 20, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

The betting markets have swung back to Trump as a slight favorite

Trump is back on top. pic.twitter.com/A5IaS8aNTd

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 20, 2024

---

If the numbers are accurate, apparently with Harris at 49%, Americans just aren't poor or miserable enough yet. Truly astounding how idiotic dem voters are, they will literally vote for anyone the TV tells them to vote for. They are the exact type of people that the nazis flourished under.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The betting markets have swung back to Trump as a slight favorite

Trump is back on top. pic.twitter.com/A5IaS8aNTd

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 20, 2024

---

If the numbers are accurate, apparently with Harris at 49%, Americans just aren't poor or miserable enough yet. Truly astounding how idiotic dem voters are, they will literally vote for anyone the TV tells them to vote for. They are the exact type of people that the nazis flourished under.

---

more movement

Trump already has a 3% lead over Kamala's odds. pic.twitter.com/n0H3dYeHsA

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 20, 2024

Donald Trump says he would be open to RFK Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out and endorses him https://t.co/kbXnS8tMyX

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 20, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Donald Trump says he would be open to RFK Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out and endorses him https://t.co/kbXnS8tMyX

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 20, 2024

---

wonder where he will choose.. atty general? Head of FDA?

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Donald Trump says he would be open to RFK Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out and endorses him https://t.co/kbXnS8tMyX

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 20, 2024

---

wonder where he will choose.. atty general? Head of FDA?

---

Hopefully not Secretary of Agriculture

Since RFK is taking more votes from Trump than Harris this is a little bit of a downside risk for Harris. https://t.co/sMVXAVc2rw

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 20, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

winners write the vast majority of the history books and our public doesn't care irregardles.

---

Now that's the truth

Maybe I missed it....but I don't remember ever hearing him say this before

“I happen to like [Obama]. I respect him and I respect his wife.”

— Donald Trump on President Obama and Michelle Obama ahead of their DNC speeches tonight pic.twitter.com/MDxJtCBf91

— The Recount (@therecount) August 20, 2024

One of these men was raised rurally in poverty, in a single parent household, and at times by a maternal grandparent. As soon as he could leave his home state, he ran off to G'town & Yale. This was good.
The other ran off to the Marines (only later to Yale). This was bad. pic.twitter.com/MGBpQg6nzw

— TheFarmersBookshelf (@1947Farmall) August 20, 2024

BREAKING: Heavy clashes, mass arrests as Protesters against DNC push against Chicago Police line outside Israeli Consulate pic.twitter.com/pixV0eKYTp

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) August 21, 2024