And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Your Democrat friends see them as a far greater threat to their political hegemony than you. And they laugh at you for attacking people within your own coalition, while not holding your Democrat friends similarly accountable for all the outright authoritarians in their own caucus.
Just a head scratcher as to how you cannot understand the self-damage you do when you attack two of the more effective grassroots influencers on the right.
FWIW, China's demographics are catching up to them and their window of opportunity is closing. Of course, the same phenomenon is playing out for much of the West.
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Your Democrat friends see them as a far greater threat to their political hegemony than you. And they laugh at you for attacking people within your own coalition, while not holding your Democrat friends similarly accountable for all the outright authoritarians in their own caucus.
Just a head scratcher as to how you cannot understand the self-damage you do when you attack two of the more effective grassroots influencers on the right.
This is an opinion board, and my opinions maybe influence a person or two.
I call things as I see them.
One of the biggest "head scratchers" to me in this entire Trump era is that he and his kind expect total loyalty, yet much of his schtick (same with Owens and Kirk) is constantly attacking other conservatives. So I'm not supposed to say anything bad about that group, yet they routinely attack other Repubs. Nobody does more "self damage" than they do, and they actually influence folks.
I always look at the long term. I think Trump, Owens, and Kirk are scourges on the issues and causes I care about. I think they are doing real long term damages, even as they occasionally win a short term battle or two. I'm a Christian far above and beyond all else, and they do nothing to advance the Kingdom.
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Your Democrat friends see them as a far greater threat to their political hegemony than you. And they laugh at you for attacking people within your own coalition, while not holding your Democrat friends similarly accountable for all the outright authoritarians in their own caucus.
Just a head scratcher as to how you cannot understand the self-damage you do when you attack two of the more effective grassroots influencers on the right.
This is an opinion board, and my opinions maybe influence a person or two.
I call things as I see them.
One of the biggest "head scratchers" to me in this entire Trump era is that he and his kind expect total loyalty, yet much of his schtick (same with Owens and Kirk) is constantly attacking other conservatives. So I'm not supposed to say anything bad about that group, yet they routinely attack other Repubs. Nobody does more "self damage" than they do, and they actually influence folks.
I always look at the long term. I think Trump, Owens, and Kirk are scourges on the issues and causes I care about. I think they are doing real long term damages, even as they occasionally win a short term battle or two. I'm a Christian far above and beyond all else, and they do nothing to advance the Kingdom.
Thank you. This is an opinion board and all opinions need to be heard. The brow-beating and targeting is BS. Why come to a Message Board if you don't want to hear opposing views?
Or they want a circle-jerk to reassure how right and good they are...
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Hey you are welcome to call her names if you want
I just don't agree that she is "stupid"
At the very least she has been clever at making herself a media personality
FWIW, China's demographics are catching up to them and their window of opportunity is closing. Of course, the same phenomenon is playing out for much of the West.
Bingo
They might be the first country to truly collapse from ultra low fertility rates.
Mainly because their rates are soooo incredibly low.
Professor Yi Fuxian (university of Wisconsin) is an expert on China and says the real rate is more like 0.80
Compared to places in Europe like Sweden that is at 1.6
Plus no immigrants want to move to China.
In fact native Chinese are still leaving China and immigrating abroad….where as Swedes don't leave Sweden.
Its a slow motion train wreck for China and the communist leadership does not seem to have a plan to stop it
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Hey you are welcome to call her names if you want
I just don't agree that she is "stupid"
At the very least she has been clever at making herself a media personality
On the plus side almost all of that money comes back to us as it's spent with American defense contractors.
Gee that makes it all worthwhile.
We are borrowing additional billions of dollars in the hope that some of it is spent for bombs, bullets and missiles.
No doubt the vast majority of Americans are supportive of such fiscal priorities.
Look there's very few bright spots here. The two that come to mind are 1) we aren't doing the fighting 2) the money we are giving away is essentially coming right back to us
I didn't say I agreed. I didn't say it's good fiscal policy (like anyone really gives a **** about that anyhow). Fact is most of the foreign aid we give away comes right back to us via the military industrial complex and by most I mean almost 100% of it.
Now we can argue why we spend money on all sorts of worthless government projects though I suspect we probably agree.
I respect your opinion.
But most Americans do not support this insane give away.
Especially when so many are working 2 jobs just to stay fed.
L
I don't recall saying most Americans did. In fact, I'm quite sure I never said that.
Agreed
You certainly did not.
Simply repeating the obvious that most Americans do not want to give Ukraine even more billions .
BTW , wonder how the Russians feel about our representatives waving Ukrainian flags in the middle of our capital building.
Just imagine how Americans would feel if the situation was reversed .
Yet if Russia finally retaliates our media will be 'shocked'.
New York Post Most voters in battleground House districts favor Ukraine aid: poll
Amajority of voters in battleground congressional districts support sending more aid to Ukraine while a plurality of GOP primary voters in deep-red districts also back military assistance for Kyiv in its war against Russia, according to new polls exclusively shared with The Post.
The February poll found that 60% of battleground district voters are in favor of all forms of US aid, with support highest among those 50-64 years old (60%) and 65 and older (80%).
A majority of Republican voters in battleground districts for the 2024 election favor more US aid for Ukraine, according to a poll exclusively shared with The Post. AP Provided by New York Post
A slight majority of battleground voters under 35 (52%) and a plurality of those 35-49 (48%) also backed the additional aid.
Just 34% of all swing district voters were against the funding, while 6% said they did not know whether they supported it.
The survey also showed a majority of Republicans in safe GOP House seats strongly agree that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is an enemy of the United States" and "wants to reestablish the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe."
In total, 86% of Republican primary voters in deep-red districts had an unfavorable opinion of Putin, and 64% of them strongly agreed that "Russia had no cause and was wrong to invade Ukraine."
Another poll, taken in March, also revealed that 46% of safe district GOP voters back at least the provision of military aid for Ukraine, compared with 40% who oppose all forms of US assistance to Kyiv.
"
Classic propaganda 'cherry picking '.
Bottom line the vast majority of Americans did not want Ukraine to get still another 60 BILLION dollars our country will have to BORROW in order to give it away .
At best, the American people are 50-50 on that question. And I can bury you with polling on the question.
Wording matters. If one asks "would you like for the Ukraine War to end" or "should there be a negotiated settlement immediately"…well, you get very high "yes" numbers.
But if you ask a different question like "do you want Russia to win the Ukraine War"….the numbers are different.
Polling question on funding "too much or too little" is 45/45. Dead split.
Don't project your feelings into the argument. Very few people actually care about the issue driving your own opposition to the war - the deficit. A large majority wants Ukraine rather than Russia to win. It's getting there that's the problem.
We have to BORROW the 60 BILLION that we then GIVE AWAY to another country while our own citizens struggle to make ends meet.
Put that simple reality into your ****ing polls and see what the results would be.
We are borrowing +1000x that to give away to ourselves, too....so everyone is fat dumb happy. Literally, nobody cares about the deficit, or the debt. Never, ever, not once in my life have I seen deficits be the driving factor of an election. Yet, that is what you and most of the reactionary right are using to justify a litany of bad decisions on things that have nothing to do with deficits. It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.
I'm in the realist school of thought on foreign policy. It's just so obvious that's the way the world actually works that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could contest the point. Russian victory in the war in Ukraine drastically increases the chances for war between Nato and Russia, for a long list of reasons. We cannot just "let it happen." Russia must be stopped, or costs go up - more troops in Europe, more weapons in Europe, more military bases in Europe, more foreign aid to stabilize the Eastern tier of Nato. And yet, you guys respond to that not with an alternative application of realism, or an impassioned argument for idealism. You just want to stick your head in a hole and ignore it all, because.....deficits......
Just completely daft that anyone would make the argument that letting Russia have Ukraine will save money.
Russia has had Ukraine for centuries .
It's bizarre how only recently has the US decided to spend billions of dollars and risk WW3 on Ukraine's behalf.
But these proxy wars just turn you internet Rambo's on.
From the safety of your keyboards you play rough and tough. Knowing full well the majority of the American people want their concerns addressed before those of Ukraine.
A country most US citizens STILL could not find on a map.
Few Americans could have found Poland or Czechoslovakia or Tunisia or the Solomon Islands on a map in 1939, either, yet hundreds of thousands died fighting to liberate them.
WWIII has already started buddy. You can't sit it out. It will find you, eventually, unless you engage it where it is. Right now, that's Ukraine and Israel.
We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.
C'mon, you don't really believe that do you?
Let's review
A. Communists took over most of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. Leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. B. The British Empire was economically unraveled leading to the horrors of the India - Pakistan partition with millions killed. C. Communists took over China, Manchuria and North Korea; leading to the Korean War war and additional 36,000 Americans dead. D. France's economic collapse which led to Vietnam's independence, then division into North and South. Which in tern resulted in the Vietnam War with another 57,000 Us dead.
Seriously, just how much more evidence do you require ?
So what your saying is had we given Eastern Europe, France, and the British and French colonies along with China and Korea to Germany and Japan respectively, things would have been what? Better? I just want to understand what perspective you're working from before I also pick apart your points. Like if India and/or Pakistan prefer their independence. Or that the ultimate collapse for the first time in history of colonial empires wasn't an incredstride forward.
My point is our 500,000 dead servicemen died for nothing.
Europe merely traded one dictator for another . Asia merely traded one authoritarian political system for another.
The British, French and Dutch colonies all became independent even with the defeat of Germany and Japan.
The United States constantly blunders into wars that do not initially involve us and it's always the poor and working class who do a disproportionate amount of the fighting and dying.
when the carnage is over damn little benefit ensues.
Yet here we go still again in Ukraine of all places .
I feel you are letting your frustration with the current conflicts and political environment (which I empathize with) cloud your judgement/assessment of WW2.
Maybe in part.
Primarily I just never again want to see Americans mangled or blown to bits on behalf of east coast bluebloods. For people who don't give a flying *****
Still, how was communism 'better' for Eastern Europe and much of central Europe ? Certainly not for the millions who either starved to death or were executed.
How was Communism 'better' for the tens of millions who stareved to death, died in forced combat , or were executed throughout Asia ?
We had over 500,000 men die in the worst ways imaginable for 'prosperity' and the right to 'police' Korea and Vietnam ?
President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke for nearly an hour. The leaders agreed that it's up to Hamas, now, to take the next step in negotiations, according to the White House. https://t.co/In0PSgfhN4
— The Christian Science Monitor (@csmonitor) April 28, 2024
Netanyahu has already made his position clear: the war ends when Hamas s totally defeated. And that's is the correct one: Israel does not have any other choice given the demonic level of evil of their enemy.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Ukraine asked for our help in establishing a form of Government that gives the people more freedom. Russia rolled tanks over a sovereign border. End of story, Russia lost any moral high ground in 2014.
lol nice spin but when the heck to Zelensky and his non elections holding regime ever ask for that?
Not to mention there is no evidence that the extremely corrupt Ukrainian state is interested in "freedom".
What it is interested in (or at least the central and western parts of the country) is in being away from Moscow.
Fair enough.
Again how is that something that American taxpayers should be paying for? Or fighting a proxy war over?
The West has been courting them since pre-1990s. It is called credibility. You can't ask a Nation to stand up to the Soviets/Russia and when they do walk away. I know you and many others would, but there are other eyes on how we handle this.
Sweden and Finland in NATO is huge. That doesn't happen without US helping Ukraine.
1. The USSR and the Russian Federation are two sperate and very different entities. But I can see how you think it bolsters you case to try and confuse Americans into thinking they are the same.
2. DC should have never interfered in Ukraine in the first place...trying to pull it out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody and costly affair...and probably doomed to failure.
3. Sweden and Finland are minor issues. NATO already had the Baltic on lockdown and with troops in the Baltic States within easy striking distance of St. Petersburg. It was not a geo-strategic game changer.
If that is the one take away for why this bloody proxy war in Ukraine has been a good thing then its weak sauce
Everything is weak sauce! Hauling people away in rail cars to Russia, was weak sauce. Targeting utilities was weak sauce.
Let's face it, you are Pro-Russia and Pro-Putin, there is nothing that Putin can do that will justify the US helping Ukraine.
You have to make that argument because you want this proxy war. (a war you wont go fight yourself coward)
You are as bad as those back in 2003 who were attacking those advocating for foreign policy restraint as "Saddam loves"
Its so goofy you are just retreading talking points from 20 years ago.
All those years of sacrifice and investment are wasted to just let Putin now attack and take Nations.
But, go ahead and play the "you are not going to go" card. your way. Our you humming the music from "Hair!" as you type?
1. What nations? Putin has not attacked any NATO allied state....
Ukraine was never in the USA's economic or military orbit
2. "no going to fight" is a good card because it shows how hallow your line of argument it....the ukraine proxy war is the most super important thing and if we don't stop Putin he will have tanks parked outside the Paris city hall...but then you also don't seem to think it worth fighting for yourself.
"super-important"? It is a line item, like Israel or other aide. The only reason it is even an issue is people like you that seem to be so caught up in disgust over selling arms to Ukraine to defend themselves.
We are giving them billions in taxpayer money...don't act like they are paying for these weapons in a normal one to one buyer v seller arraignment.
We are also paying for to keep their entire civil service payments going and who knows what else we are paying for.
They are basically keeping the lights on over there because we pay for it.
If it was just then asking to buy weapons I would not care as much.
"The U.S. government has also bought seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers. America is covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all 57,000 of them. The U.S. funds divers..."
ps
We are also basically running their war out of the Pentagon....training their troops, give them tactical advise, satellite and recon info....we are literally fighting a proxy war with a nuclear armed state that has not attacked us.
It is aid. They use it for what they need. It is not prescriptive. Johnson even made sure the loan terms were clear. Geez, you do realize that monies go to a General Fund and then are cash flowed.
And she's a disgusting (and stupid) human being . . . .
No she is not
And if you have to resort to those kinds of insults then that tells us everything we need to know about you
Wait a second, she and her kind can regularly call folks traitors, disgusting, psychopaths, satanists, sick, crazy betrayers, blackmailed, war mongers, liars, despicable, and a host of other names, but they themselves are off limits?
Candance and Charlie Kirk are the absolute worst.
Your Democrat friends see them as a far greater threat to their political hegemony than you. And they laugh at you for attacking people within your own coalition, while not holding your Democrat friends similarly accountable for all the outright authoritarians in their own caucus.
Just a head scratcher as to how you cannot understand the self-damage you do when you attack two of the more effective grassroots influencers on the right.
This is an opinion board, and my opinions maybe influence a person or two.
I call things as I see them.
One of the biggest "head scratchers" to me in this entire Trump era is that he and his kind expect total loyalty, yet much of his schtick (same with Owens and Kirk) is constantly attacking other conservatives. So I'm not supposed to say anything bad about that group, yet they routinely attack other Repubs. Nobody does more "self damage" than they do, and they actually influence folks.
I always look at the long term. I think Trump, Owens, and Kirk are scourges on the issues and causes I care about. I think they are doing real long term damages, even as they occasionally win a short term battle or two. I'm a Christian far above and beyond all else, and they do nothing to advance the Kingdom.
Pelosi expected loyalty, and got it. So has every Democrat leader of the modern era. And they do it by whipping in private and publicly working WITH their base, no matter how crazy they might seem, to expand the Overton Window as necessary to get the Democrat Platform enacted into law.
Republicans, on the other hand......tend to elect leaders who attempt to PUBLICLY isolate and demonize their base, and then express disgust when anyone complains about it. Trump attacks people who attack him, and people who are publicly fighting with the base. That is why the base adores him. He stands up for them.
Owens & Kirk are mostly right on most issues. Owens in particular has positions on Israel I do not agree with. I can agree to disagree with her on that issue and move on to cooperate with her on others. My wife is a conservative voter. Does not watch Fox News. Not interested in politics that much. Does not care to talk to me about politics, and most certainly does not want to debate anyone else on them. Does not like Trumps schtick and was mad at him for losing in 2020. Did vote for him in 2016 & 2020, and will this go around. Every now & then, she shocks me, like the day she bought us tickets to a Friends For Life fundraiser featuring Abby Johnson. Coulda knocked me over with a feather. I had no idea she cared about the issue at all. She normally HATES political events like that. (full of people who like to sit & talk politics). But she admired Abby. And she did surprise me the day she mentioned that she followed Candace on Twitter and liked her posts. I say all of that as an example of how the appeal of these folks you disdain is far broader than you realize, and their impact on your agenda is decidedly positive. They organize support YOU need. They speak for millions of people like my wife who don't want to speak for themselves.
It's just fascinating that our "moderates," the ones who believe in reaching across the aisle with Democrats with whom they have relatively few political beliefs in common, have such tiny little TRex arms when it comes to doing the same thing with people in their own base, with home they are mostly in agreement and the rub is almost entirely "style." The Kirks and Owens of the process are essential to keeping a large part of the fired up to turnout, and moving the Overton Window in our direction. Self-defeating demonization of them is always ironic, but never moreso than when the ostensibly best and brightest and most enlightened among us do it.
Polemics are a necessary part of politics, buddy. You want to defeat Trump? First step requires that you quit attacking Kirk & Owens.
You and others often argue that Dems are so much more loyal than Repubs, but that just isn't true and never has been. Party ID in voting has roughly comparable for decades. And for significant anecdotal data look at the Dem schisms on any issues related to Israel, corp taxes, crime, woke-ism, immigration, and many more issues. They are all over the place.
But you still did not address my main point, which is that Owens and Kirk basically make their living ripping other Republicans. They truly spend as much time attacking Repubs, or traditional Repub positions, as they do Dems. Worse, it's one thing to argue that others are wrong, but they constantly ridicule and disparage. Everything is a serious grievance.
Trump is the same way. No, he does not only attack folks who attack him. He attacks folks who disagree with him. I mean, the guy is complaining about his lack of campaign cash, yet just a few months ago, he told donors of other primary candidates he did not want their money and he would not give them the time of day. He won't return their calls and badmouths them publicly and privately.
And even if he did only attack those who attack him, isn't a leader supposed to do better? You can play to your base without behaving like a juvenile.
Yet your complaint is a message board opinion of a couple influencers who spout nonsense and divide? Total lack of proportionality.
You and others often argue that Dems are so much more loyal than Repubs, but that just isn't true and never has been. Party ID in voting has roughly comparable for decades. And for significant anecdotal data look at the Dem schisms on any issues related to Israel, corp taxes, crime, woke-ism, immigration, and many more issues. They are all over the place. But Dem leaders never step up to the microphone to make a Romney-esque attack on their base. Never. I cannot recall a single time in my life when it happened.
But you still did not address my main point, which is that Owens and Kirk basically make their living ripping other Republicans. They truly spend as much time attacking Repubs, or traditional Repub positions, as they do Dems. Worse, it's one thing to argue that others are wrong, but they constantly ridicule and disparage. Everything is a serious grievance. In no small part that's because those Republicans deserve being called to task for not supporting the platform and the grassroots of their own party. Democrats do not have that dynamic going on for one simple reason - their leaders do not attack their base, and instead encourage and support their base with fundraising and passage of legislation. Ever hear any Democrat leaders publicly rip their base over reparations rhetoric? over CRT rhetoric? over Queer Theory rhetoric? Nope. They launch bail funds to spring rioters and tweak Title IX rules to force public education support for transgenderism beyond the odd ****** dance in the elementary school lunchrooms and all the way into the girls locker rooms.
Trump is the same way. No, he does not only attack folks who attack him. He attacks folks who disagree with him. I mean, the guy is complaining about his lack of campaign cash, yet just a few months ago, he told donors of other primary candidates he did not want their money and he would not give them the time of day. He won't return their calls and badmouths them publicly and privately. He publicly jabbed RDS a while back. Everybody here blew a gasket. I said it was all part of the game, jockeying & negotiating. Several here then attacked me (with typically Trumpesque vigor). But lo & behold, look at the news yesterday. Trump & RDS played kissy face. Trump plays the game well. He just doesn't play the game the way you like it played. Your comments would make sense if he was attacking his supporters. But he does not do that. He praises them, like he did RDS yesterday (now that RDS is a supporter....)
And even if he did only attack those who attack him, isn't a leader supposed to do better? You can play to your base without behaving like a juvenile. Define juvenile. I could make a pretty good case that the anguish of the moderates is exactly that. Actually, I already have.
Yet your complaint is a message board opinion of a couple influencers who spout nonsense and divide? Total lack of proportionality. Or perhaps it has more to do with his critics not fully understanding the proper way to play the game. Before you quibble with that, explain (WITHOUT schoolyard insults against his supporters) how he just won his 3rd nomination. Could it not be the problem has at least as much to do with his most ardent detractors than with him?
Dude. Never attack your base. Never. Ever. It's a lose-lose proposition. If you win, you have a smaller base. And if you lose, well....you lose. The key to politics is to join. Trump exults those who join him.....holding up that baby in NYC saying "look at this future construction worker!" That is the key to his success. He exalts people the GOP donor class thinks should sit down & shut up.
You and others often argue that Dems are so much more loyal than Repubs, but that just isn't true and never has been. Party ID in voting has roughly comparable for decades. And for significant anecdotal data look at the Dem schisms on any issues related to Israel, corp taxes, crime, woke-ism, immigration, and many more issues. They are all over the place. But Dem leaders never step up to the microphone to make a Romney-esque attack on their base. Never. I cannot recall a single time in my life when it happened.
But you still did not address my main point, which is that Owens and Kirk basically make their living ripping other Republicans. They truly spend as much time attacking Repubs, or traditional Repub positions, as they do Dems. Worse, it's one thing to argue that others are wrong, but they constantly ridicule and disparage. Everything is a serious grievance. In no small part that's because those Republicans deserve being called to task for not supporting the platform and the grassroots of their own party. Democrats do not have that dynamic going on for one simple reason - their leaders do not attack their base, and instead encourage and support their base with fundraising and passage of legislation. Ever hear any Democrat leaders publicly rip their base over reparations rhetoric? over CRT rhetoric? over Queer Theory rhetoric? Nope. They launch bail funds to spring rioters and tweak Title IX rules to force public education support for transgenderism beyond the odd ****** dance in the elementary school lunchrooms and all the way into the girls locker rooms.
Trump is the same way. No, he does not only attack folks who attack him. He attacks folks who disagree with him. I mean, the guy is complaining about his lack of campaign cash, yet just a few months ago, he told donors of other primary candidates he did not want their money and he would not give them the time of day. He won't return their calls and badmouths them publicly and privately. He publicly jabbed RDS a while back. Everybody here blew a gasket. I said it was all part of the game, jockeying & negotiating. Several here then attacked me (with typically Trumpesque vigor). But lo & behold, look at the news yesterday. Trump & RDS played kissy face. Trump plays the game well. He just doesn't play the game the way you like it played. Your comments would make sense if he was attacking his supporters. But he does not do that. He praises them, like he did RDS yesterday (now that RDS is a supporter....)
And even if he did only attack those who attack him, isn't a leader supposed to do better? You can play to your base without behaving like a juvenile. Define juvenile. I could make a pretty good case that the anguish of the moderates is exactly that. Actually, I already have.
Yet your complaint is a message board opinion of a couple influencers who spout nonsense and divide? Total lack of proportionality. Or perhaps it has more to do with his critics not fully understanding the proper way to play the game. Before you quibble with that, explain (WITHOUT schoolyard insults against his supporters) how he just won his 3rd nomination. Could it not be the problem has at least as much to do with his most ardent detractors than with him?
Dude. Never attack your base. Never. Ever. It's a lose-lose proposition. If you win, you have a smaller base. And if you lose, well....you lose. The key to politics is to join. Trump exults those who join him.....holding up that baby in NYC saying "look at this future construction worker!" That is the key to his success. He exalts people the GOP donor class thinks should sit down & shut up.
90% of our posts, we agree. This one, however, was bizarre and takes the cake for having it both ways.
"They only call people out when they deserve it." What?!?! Who is the arbiter of that?
Numerous Dems have called out the squad. The squad has called out numerous Dems. Tulsi Gabbard called out Dems. Many Dems called out Bernie Sanders. Bernie calls out numerous Dems. Numerous Dems called out Menendez. Manchin called out numerous Dems. Numerous Dems called out Manchin. Sinema . . . I could go on and on. This Dem "lockstep" theory has never been true.
Your only example on Trump is RDS? He attacks countless Repubs. Worse, he proudly proclaims he doesn't want certain GOP support/votes. I worked on campaigns in my early 20s. Yes, I know how to play the game and that the base is critical. But neither party wins with just their base.
I've never once resorted to schoolyard insults against Trump supporters, unless you're talking about my disdain for Kirk and Owens. But, again, I guess it's ok for actual public figures and leaders to do the same?????
You want juvenille? Ok, how about Trump's juvenile (at best) nicknames for fellow Repubs? Or his behavior in general?
3-time nominee, yes, with a poor overall electoral record (House and Senate), and near record-high negatives. If he were running against anyone but Biden (and Hillary) he'd get destroyed and amazingly, still might lose anyway.
You and others often argue that Dems are so much more loyal than Repubs, but that just isn't true and never has been. Party ID in voting has roughly comparable for decades. And for significant anecdotal data look at the Dem schisms on any issues related to Israel, corp taxes, crime, woke-ism, immigration, and many more issues. They are all over the place. But Dem leaders never step up to the microphone to make a Romney-esque attack on their base. Never. I cannot recall a single time in my life when it happened.
But you still did not address my main point, which is that Owens and Kirk basically make their living ripping other Republicans. They truly spend as much time attacking Repubs, or traditional Repub positions, as they do Dems. Worse, it's one thing to argue that others are wrong, but they constantly ridicule and disparage. Everything is a serious grievance. In no small part that's because those Republicans deserve being called to task for not supporting the platform and the grassroots of their own party. Democrats do not have that dynamic going on for one simple reason - their leaders do not attack their base, and instead encourage and support their base with fundraising and passage of legislation. Ever hear any Democrat leaders publicly rip their base over reparations rhetoric? over CRT rhetoric? over Queer Theory rhetoric? Nope. They launch bail funds to spring rioters and tweak Title IX rules to force public education support for transgenderism beyond the odd ****** dance in the elementary school lunchrooms and all the way into the girls locker rooms.
Trump is the same way. No, he does not only attack folks who attack him. He attacks folks who disagree with him. I mean, the guy is complaining about his lack of campaign cash, yet just a few months ago, he told donors of other primary candidates he did not want their money and he would not give them the time of day. He won't return their calls and badmouths them publicly and privately. He publicly jabbed RDS a while back. Everybody here blew a gasket. I said it was all part of the game, jockeying & negotiating. Several here then attacked me (with typically Trumpesque vigor). But lo & behold, look at the news yesterday. Trump & RDS played kissy face. Trump plays the game well. He just doesn't play the game the way you like it played. Your comments would make sense if he was attacking his supporters. But he does not do that. He praises them, like he did RDS yesterday (now that RDS is a supporter....)
And even if he did only attack those who attack him, isn't a leader supposed to do better? You can play to your base without behaving like a juvenile. Define juvenile. I could make a pretty good case that the anguish of the moderates is exactly that. Actually, I already have.
Yet your complaint is a message board opinion of a couple influencers who spout nonsense and divide? Total lack of proportionality. Or perhaps it has more to do with his critics not fully understanding the proper way to play the game. Before you quibble with that, explain (WITHOUT schoolyard insults against his supporters) how he just won his 3rd nomination. Could it not be the problem has at least as much to do with his most ardent detractors than with him?
Dude. Never attack your base. Never. Ever. It's a lose-lose proposition. If you win, you have a smaller base. And if you lose, well....you lose. The key to politics is to join. Trump exults those who join him.....holding up that baby in NYC saying "look at this future construction worker!" That is the key to his success. He exalts people the GOP donor class thinks should sit down & shut up.
90% of our posts, we agree. This one, however, was bizarre and takes the cake for having it both ways.
"They only call people out when they deserve it." What?!?! Who is the arbiter of that?
Numerous Dems have called out the squad. The squad has called out numerous Dems. Tulsi Gabbard called out Dems. Many Dems called out Bernie Sanders. Bernie calls out numerous Dems. Numerous Dems called out Menendez. Manchin called out numerous Dems. Numerous Dems called out Manchin. Sinema . . . I could go on and on. This Dem "lockstep" theory has never been true.
Your only example on Trump is RDS? He attacks countless Repubs. Worse, he proudly proclaims he doesn't want certain GOP support/votes. I worked on campaigns in my early 20s. Yes, I know how to play the game and that the base is critical. But neither party wins with just their base.
I've never once resorted to schoolyard insults against Trump supporters, unless you're talking about my disdain for Kirk and Owens. But, again, I guess it's ok for actual public figures and leaders to do the same?????
You want juvenille? Ok, how about Trump's juvenile (at best) nicknames for fellow Repubs? Or his behavior in general?
3-time nominee, yes, with a poor overall electoral record (House and Senate), and near record-high negatives. If he were running against anyone but Biden (and Hillary) he'd get destroyed and amazingly, still might lose anyway.
Note how Tulsi already flipped parties and Manchin, and Sinema are all being thrown out of the Democrat party. None of them will be in office a year from now.
Menendez got caught with gold falling out of his pants and coat pockets from the bribes he received and somehow he is still voting in the senate.... I guess they didn't want to jeopardize their one seat majority.
The Republicans lost a seat by kicking out George Santos for lying during his election campaign.
There is a LOT of trash in the Democrat and Uniparty, and we need someone like Trump who will tell them they are trash to their faces.
Just remember this when you hear idiots saying that "the people of Gaza are innocent... it's just Hamas". No, the majority of people in Gaza are just as evil as Hamas.
🚨𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚:
Palestinian mob attempt to LYNCH German Diplomat in the West Bank.
German Representative to Palestine Oliver Owcza has been surrounded with hundreds swarming his armored vehicle attempting to lynch him.
Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Egyptian bus driver bringing humanitarian aid into Gaza through the border crossing at Rafah pic.twitter.com/m31X4sVccL
Palestinian terrorists fired mortar shells at a pier that is being constructed by U.S. forces to bring aid into Gaza
The mortar attack occurred as United Nations officials were touring the site with Israeli troops on the coast of central Gaza, the IDF says in response to a… pic.twitter.com/ucGa62ZZDx
Each time people get killed by Islamic terrorist you will see Palestinian on the streets celebrating. Are their proposed independence attached to terrorism. In the 911 terrorist attack on the world, Trade Centre in New York, they came out the next day enmass supporting Osama bin… pic.twitter.com/GSRjFaaaiO
— Success Chikaodiri Nwele (@RealCNsuccess) April 22, 2024
I remember shortly after 9-11 seeing a video clip of Palestinians celebrating that the US had been attacked. They had huge smiles on their faces and they were extremely happy. I have searched for it repeatedly over the years but I cannot find it. I think the leftist media censored that one.
Ever since it has been difficult for me to sympathize with those people
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
I remember shortly after 9-11 seeing a video clip of Palestinians celebrating that the US had been attacked. They had huge smiles on their faces and they were extremely happy. I have searched for it repeatedly over the years but I cannot find it. I think the leftist media censored that one.
Ever since it has been difficult for me to sympathize with those people
They werent the only ones dancing that day. The dancing Israelis were celebrating as well while filming the attacks in Brooklyn. They were "art students" that were clearly Israeli spies. Our greatest ally had over 100 spies operating in our country before and leading up to 911. They were seen in Melbourne, Fl where the hijackers were in flight school. They were rounded up and allowed to leave the country by the Bush admin in the days following 9/11.
The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.
She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. Before long, the FBI was also on the scene, and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van.
The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.
The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.
'We Are Not Your Problem'
According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" referring to the World Trade Center attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.
Trump gives us plenty of reasons to doubt him, although he has a real record of accomplishment when he was president. I think most of his supporters are probably like you & me but tired of being disappointed by our leaders who promise things but rarely deliver. There are very few that are trustworthy, in or out of Washington. Trump did deliver in many ways. I think they also believe he can clean things up more than anyone else can or will. They might be wrong but I understand those feelings. I share them to some extent.
Part of me hopes Trump chooses DeSantis as his running mate & they win. After Trump does what he can, we will then return to a normal leader in 2024 & 2028. I don't expect everything to play out that way.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Those of us who are real Republicans consider MAGA the RINO's and that's being very polite.
MAGA is just the new name for conservatives & populist conservatives. They have been the party voting base for decades. They have always been culturally to the right of the leadership class and economically the center-left
(They want to fund social security and kick out the immigrants)
RINO is just the new slang name for Establishment Republicans- also know as Liberal-Conservatives…a group around since well before the old Rockefeller republicans and who have had a major policy and funding position in the party. Also known as the donor class…
(They want to import in infinity immigrants and cut social security)
It's never been completely your party since you could never win elections without the base.
I will have to go back and find the article that broke down votes by candidate/ideology and big business liberal-conservatives only get about 15% national support. There are just not enough of them to win national elections. Even if there are a lot of them in the richest zip codes
Those of us who are real Republicans consider MAGA the RINO's and that's being very polite.
WHo are the real repubs in your opinion? Romney? Mcconnel? Paul Ryan? Those types probably make up 15% of the party. They called themselves conservatives but have failed to conserve anything. The real people who make up the base are tired of the republican party of the past 30 years and want a party that serves the base not AIPAC or other lobbyists.
New York Post
