Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

that is your right as an American.

It is the job of each and every American voter to do the research, form an opinion, and vote.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

that is your right as an American.

It is the job of each and every American voter to do the research, form an opinion, and vote.

---

100% agree

Mothra said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

Trying to determine what in the world that has to do with my post.

---

This is why you should join me as a member of "White Dudes for Harris." Although we disagree, we can be like Ralph and Sam and deal with our differences next election.

It's not morally wrong for the individuals to go to the Capitol and protest what they believe is a fraudulent election. 99.9% weren't looking for trouble, they weren't armed, it absolutely was a protest. They were hoping to be heard and possibly put pressure on the Capitol to do the "correct" thing. It absolutely was meant to be a peaceful protest. There were a few instigators and like most emotional protests some idiots did damage. Those who did damage should be held accountable.

Its amazing to me that conservatives who saw all the very questionable crap that went on in key states during the election just don't care much. They are apparently upset that some people dared to protest. I'm not upset by that. I'm upset at the bad actors and idiots who did more than protest.

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

Jan 6th means as much to me as a Central American soccer game riot.

Stupid, pointless and tragic.

But not remotely an insurrection to the host country.

---

Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.

Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?

Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.

Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary." In his speech the morning of Jan. 6, Trump invoked Pence several times. Drafts of the speech did not mention the vice president, but Trump added in lines and ad-libbed more, Aguilar said. Hearings later this month will detail that process further, he said.
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted a criticism of Pence for not seeking to execute the fake-elector strategy. That tweet inflamed the mob that had by then breached the Capitol.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.

---

Who was armed ?
Certainly not the over 40 year old bunch.
There was no need for the national guard obviously.
Zero chance this unarmed bunch of old folks and goof balls was an insurrection.


Bottom line

Trump left office voluntarily.


If you want to see a real dictator in action check out Venezuela.


Anyway vote how you want .

It's all good.

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

Jan 6th means as much to me as a Central American soccer game riot.

Stupid, pointless and tragic.

But not remotely an insurrection to the host country.

---

Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.

Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?

Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.

Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary." In his speech the morning of Jan. 6, Trump invoked Pence several times. Drafts of the speech did not mention the vice president, but Trump added in lines and ad-libbed more, Aguilar said. Hearings later this month will detail that process further, he said.
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted a criticism of Pence for not seeking to execute the fake-elector strategy. That tweet inflamed the mob that had by then breached the Capitol.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.

---

Who was armed ?
Certainly not the over 40 year old bunch.
There was no need for the national guard obviously.
Zero chance this unarmed bunch of old folks and goof balls was an insurrection.


Bottom line

Trump left office voluntarily.


If you want to see a real dictator in action check out Venezuela.


Anyway vote how you want . Thank you

It's all good. Yep

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

Mitt Romney would have been a far better president than Obama. Possibly even a great president.

In my view his lost presidency is one of America's great
' what ifs '.

---

Better than Obama I will give you.

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

Jan 6th means as much to me as a Central American soccer game riot.

Stupid, pointless and tragic.

But not remotely an insurrection to the host country.

---

Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.

Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?

Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.

Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary." In his speech the morning of Jan. 6, Trump invoked Pence several times. Drafts of the speech did not mention the vice president, but Trump added in lines and ad-libbed more, Aguilar said. Hearings later this month will detail that process further, he said.
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted a criticism of Pence for not seeking to execute the fake-elector strategy. That tweet inflamed the mob that had by then breached the Capitol.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.

---

What's funny is, I agree with most of this. But as a conservative, I know that even though he is a POS, he's still FAR better for this country and my family than Harris.

I just pray that Harris, if she wins, doesn't do the irreversible damage I expect her to do, or get us into an armed conflict with Russia. Foreign policy is going to be a **** show. I suspect Putin will eventually obtain most of Ukraine, that China makes a move on Taiwan, and that there will be an all-out war in the ME (not to mention millions of new illegal immigrants in this country over the next 4 years). And of course, there will certainly be an attempt at Supreme Court packing. Harris wins, and we are in for a ****load of trouble.

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

Jan 6th means as much to me as a Central American soccer game riot.

Stupid, pointless and tragic.

But not remotely an insurrection to the host country.

---

Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.

Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?

Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.

Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary." In his speech the morning of Jan. 6, Trump invoked Pence several times. Drafts of the speech did not mention the vice president, but Trump added in lines and ad-libbed more, Aguilar said. Hearings later this month will detail that process further, he said.
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted a criticism of Pence for not seeking to execute the fake-elector strategy. That tweet inflamed the mob that had by then breached the Capitol.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.

---

Well, not everything. In the end, Mike Pence valued the Constitution over his political future.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

Trying to determine what in the world that has to do with my post.

---

This is why you should join me as a member of "White Dudes for Harris." Although we disagree, we can be like Ralph and Sam and deal with our differences next election.

---

Are we sure those are dudes?

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

Mitt Romney would have been a far better president than Obama. Possibly even a great president.

In my view his lost presidency is one of America's great
' what ifs '.

---

Better than Obama I will give you.

---

His greatest value would have been preventing Trump from running in 2016.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

The polls had him believing they'd beat Marxist Obama even after he took a dive in debates 2 and 3

Same setup here.

So much money will be lost betting on trump

---

Romney wasn't ahead in any of the polls. After his first debate, he narrowed Obama's lead, but he was consistently behind Obama in all of the major polls. The gap widened as the election got closer.

Polling in this case is completely different. Trump is now ahead in most of the swing states, and he is winning certain demographics that are a good indicator he could win this election, perhaps even convincingly - as long as he doesn't do something to screw it up. That was never the case for Romney.

---

If it's not obvious to you by now, Romney was on the same team as Obama. Just a snake playing his part.

---

You nominated Romney, I voted for your preferred candidate, never again

---

How do you you know Romney was his preferred candidate?

I know you like to play this little schtick that you're no longer a Republican, but it's pretty disingenuous to try to disavow association with the party when you consistently voted Republican in the Republican primaries for years prior to 2024.

Truth is, Romney was YOUR preferred candidate. You love you those milquetoast Republicans.

---

I voted for Romney and the rest of your presidential candidates, then you tell me they are milquetoast Republicans. Why should anyone trust your opinion?

I note also, that you consider yourself an influencer who is very persuasive in you family and circle of friends..

This year, you influence them to vote for Trump while posting over here how deficient you candidate is.

---

Why did you vote for your party's presidential candidate in the primaries if he's so milquetoast? Why did you continue to support your party's presidential candidates for years if they were so terrible? Perhaps you continuing to support your party's weak presidential candidates in the primaries is the reason your party nominated Trump.

I don't consider myself an "influencer" outside of anyone but my immediate family. My family is full of liberals and milquetoast "conservatives" such as yourself who have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most of them, like you, will be supporting Kamala Harris, either through their vote or non-vote.

As for Trump, he is truly a deficient candidate. The difference between you and I is I understand that the only viable alternative is actually dangerous to the country and conservative causes, and a much worse candidate if you are an actual conservative. You are blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture.

---

in re: not voting for Trump
Please get your Trump KJV Bible out and turn to the US Constitution. Jan 6 disqualifies Trump.

---

And yet, the Supreme Court hasn't disqualified him. So I guess you're wrong again.

You prefer Kamala Harris and her dangerous policies, which means you are either a) blinded by your hatred for Trump, and are unable to see the big picture; or b) aren't really conservative.

---

The man sat on his thumbs while the US Capitol was attacked because he liked the fact those doing the attacking did it on his behalf. There has never been a clearer dereliction of presidential duty, no matter what led up to it. You do not have to agree that it is disqualifying, but to act like people who see that day as disqualifying are oblivious to the "danger to the country" is a really close-minded thought process.

---

you are allowed your opinion. Just dont see others opinion as wrong and attack them for it.

Sounds like what you said so lets make sure we are in agreement and remember both sides get an opinion.

Opinion is that nothing Trump has done is disqualifying. The fact is congress is the only body who can decide that what Trump did is disqualifying or not.. and cogress has not ruled on this issue so either he didnt do anything disqualifying or they are waiting to change the make up of congress to disqualify him. Congress is seated before POTUS.

If he wins and is sworn in on Jan 20th then your opinion that he did something disqualifying remains just an opinion

---

Jan 6 disqualifies Trump from receiving my vote.

---

Jan 6th means as much to me as a Central American soccer game riot.

Stupid, pointless and tragic.

But not remotely an insurrection to the host country.

---

Everything happened precisely as Trump intended. The mob was supposed to march to the Capitol. It was supposed to stop the certification. Why would Trump call it off when it was doing exactly what he wanted it to do?

There was advanced planning of a major disruptive event on Jan. 6. Trump planned the "rally" on Jan 6. Rudy Giuliani, on Jan. 2, said that Jan. 6 was "going to be a great day" and that they're going to the Capitol. The lady organizing Stop the Steal said on Jan 5 that Trump would call for the mob to march on the Capitol.
There was advanced awareness within the White House and a lot of people in the White House were worried.

Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed. Tony Ornato mentioned Trump's awareness that they had knives, guns, body armor, and spears. Trump was furious that the enclosure where people could come hear his speech wasn't full. Trump said let's get rid of the magnetometers because "they're not here to hurt me." He's aware that they've got weapons and his reaction is, who cares?

Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol. The mob actually launched its violent assault during and immediately after Trump's speech urging them to march to the Capitol.

Some offer the defense that Trump used words and tweets like march "peacefully and patriotically" and then later to "remain peaceful" and "stay peaceful." But that's not all he said or did. He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary." In his speech the morning of Jan. 6, Trump invoked Pence several times. Drafts of the speech did not mention the vice president, but Trump added in lines and ad-libbed more, Aguilar said. Hearings later this month will detail that process further, he said.
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted a criticism of Pence for not seeking to execute the fake-elector strategy. That tweet inflamed the mob that had by then breached the Capitol.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
If Trump truly wanted only a "peaceful" protest, why did he passively allow the violence to unfold? Why was it ultimately up to Mike Pence to skip the chain of command and call out the National Guard? These statements were backed up with testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who said that Pence told Pentagon leaders to "get the Guard down here, put down this situation."
Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard on Jan 6 and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets."
I end where I started: everything happened precisely as Trump intended.

---

Well, not everything. In the end, Mike Pence valued the Constitution over his political future.

---

Mike Pence did the right thing and his place in history is secure.

Sincerely believe he would make a far better president than either Trump or Harris.

Who is armed? That would be the guys who left their weapons across state lines ar the hotel.

4th and Inches said:

---

Who is armed? That would be the guys who left their weapons across state lines ar the hotel.

---

The guys who wouldn't pass through the magnetometers at the Trump rally & and were observed by Capitol police to have weapons. The guys who assaulted Capitol police & assaulted the Capitol

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Who is armed? That would be the guys who left their weapons across state lines ar the hotel.

---

The guys who wouldn't pass through the magnetometers at the Trump rally & and were observed by Capitol police to have weapons. The guys who assaulted Capitol police & assaulted the Capitol

---

meh, i carry all the time as my second amendment right and my state permit allows. Also, there is a knife in my pocket every day since i was like 12.

99% of people would get jambed up with a weapons charge where i live.. everybody got a knife in their pocket or a conceal carry