Trump is THE model for a leader (Reuters poll result)

[Correll]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

 

[Desperado]

It must break your heart, that the conservative base of the country is flushing the Cheneys, Bushes, Romney & McCain types down the toilet.

We need leaders who will fight for what is best for this country. Leaders who will stand up to China instead of selling us out. Leaders that prefer peace and trade to warmongering. Leaders that love our country instead of preaching it’s racist and evil.

Yup. It's a cult alright.

Complete with Dear Leader.

You people are the cult. You are projecting.

That is true because Trump put America first, all the others are globalist

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Democrats are capitalists. AOC fully embraces capitalism. So does Bernie.

Wasn't it AOC that said capitalism is irredeemable?

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

She is a Democratic Socialist. citygator is. not CEO material.

Do they believe in social programs? Yep. Do they think there is too much capital in the hands of too few? Yep. Do they still hock their wares in the capital market like everyone else? Yep. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

They want to tax the rich at 90%. LOL

Wuhan virus…started in a lab. They don’t believe that. Why? They are morons. Want to have social programs? Stop taxing small businesses and implementing min wage increases.

Your 90% is bullshit. You can’t argue facts so you make shit up. Biden has put out his tax plan and it’s slight increases in $400k and up earners and slight increase in corporate taxes.

Why you right wing nuts want to act like you have any idea where a virus originated is nucking futs. I assume it’s tribalism and you think by pretending the virus was released by China it will erase the culpability of Trump and his supporters of murder for lying and mishandling the response.

Keep making stuff up.

I said AOC and Sanders, not Biden. Link that the increases are slight. They are introducing a budget that is higher than that of WW2 with a $1.3Trn deficit. I am not a RW. I have told you this 100x. You just see what you want to see. Definitely not CEO material.

 

[citygator]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

 

[Correll]

It must break your heart, that the conservative base of the country is flushing the Cheneys, Bushes, Romney & McCain types down the toilet.

We need leaders who will fight for what is best for this country. Leaders who will stand up to China instead of selling us out. Leaders that prefer peace and trade to warmongering. Leaders that love our country instead of preaching it’s racist and evil.

Trump is fine if you like congenital liars, thieves, nepotism, cronyism, rabblerousers, reckless abandonment of their oath to support the constitution, and willing to overthrow elections to win even if they didn't get the votes, and that attack anybody with an opinion different than theirs as the strive for a top down autocratic government model so they can hold their head up with their favorite totalitarian leaders they wish to emulate.
Of course if you believe in the constitution and rule of law, people like him totally blow.

Trump was a completely mainstream politician with completely mainstream policies.


Your hysterical reaction is evidence of how radical you have become, no reflection on him.

Your turning your back on reality and how he operated is evidence of why nobody will trust a trumper in the white house for 8 or 12 years, while they wander in the desert waiting for the meaning of committment constitutional foundations of this country to be re-revealed to them. They may stumble over it someday, but right now they are not even looking for it. They are lost.

"How he operated"? You mean, other than having an odd style, completely ******* normally?

Let's see. He pushed a little harder on trade issues, and deported a little more than norman.


omg.

View attachment 494074

Norman who? Trump didn't deport as many as Obama. Not sure he even came up to Bush. If deportation is your thing, I have read that Joe deported around 300,000 in his first 100 days.

Kind of telling that you did not try to support your pretense that "how he operated" was so bad. You really quick to move on to some other subject.

Did you try a few times, and realize that you couldn't do it, at all?

I can cite about a million examples, from "unimportant" to "holy shit". I'll start with this one.

He tried to get the results of the last election decertified. This despite losing every election challenge and without any rational reason to do so. Going as far as saying during a rally that his supporters should go to the capitol to try to stop it. Something that turned violent.

I think that is both an unprecedented and wholly undemocratic way to operate.

That election, with it's insane level of absentee ballots, was unprecedented and questionable.

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything.

Calling for a protest to put political pressure on Congress, to take action he supported, ie decertify, is not unprecedented or undemocratic.


Trump is a fighter. That is unusual in modern times, at least on the right. But other than his style, he is a mainstream politician with mainstream political positions.

Trump is dumb, uneducated, lazy and belligerent. He not much of a man. He's always done things half-assed on a whim.. Look at his track record over the past 40 years.

You mean where he has been a success in three incredibly competitive fields?

Looks pretty impressive to me.

"Dumb"? LOL!!! Only a liar or a fool would say something like that.

His father bailed him out repeatedly because he's no good at construction and development. Trump NEVER does his due dilligence. He's had some success as a promoter, but he gets bored easily.

Building his casinos on the wrong side of town is an example. Trump university is another. He even cheated Veterans with his Trump Foundation.

He's cheated employees, contractors, vendors, investors and bankers and wives his whole life and has been involved in 4,000 lawsuits with second rate lawyers because he doesn't listen to them or pay his bills.

Three successful careers. Your nitpicking is dismissed.

Trump is a populist. His style was strange. But his policies and actions were completely mainstream.


That you flipped out, is you being radical, not a reflection on him.

They act like lower taxes and returning jobs to America were new ideas. Of course they also pretend the border is fine and that corruption doesn't exist, so what does that tell you?

They completely dishonest anti-American assholes.

 

[Correll]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

Actually I specifically addressed that, in my post. Are you high on drugs, right now?

 

[citygator]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

Actually I specifically addressed that, in my post. Are you high on drugs, right now?

89 courts ignored the law. Including Republican appointees? Yea. Sure bud. By the way I have some beach from property in WV to sell you.

 

[basquebromance]

in 2016, Trump was a wizened, ageless tortoise in an aquarium full of decentralized air pumps. TV was a major oxygen source. there were many others: shock-humor podcasts, celebrity gossip sites, viral clickbait start ups. and then there was social media, the biggest oxygen source of all, powered by millions of regular people who loved or hated Trump enough to keep talking perpetually about Trump. everything he did or said incited a sharp spike of activating emotion, positive or negative, in almost everyone. he was a ready-made viral meme.

 

[gmeyers1944]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

 

[gmeyers1944]

in 2016, Trump was a wizened, ageless tortoise in an aquarium full of decentralized air pumps. TV was a major oxygen source. there were many others: shock-humor podcasts, celebrity gossip sites, viral clickbait start ups. and then there was social media, the biggest oxygen source of all, powered by millions of regular people who loved or hated Trump enough to keep talking perpetually about Trump. everything he did or said incited a sharp spike of activating emotion, positive or negative, in almost everyone. he was a ready-made viral meme.

What kind of psychobabble is that?

 

[citygator]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

The right wing Supreme Court covered for Biden?

 

[Correll]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

Actually I specifically addressed that, in my post. Are you high on drugs, right now?

89 courts ignored the law. Including Republican appointees? Yea. Sure bud. By the way I have some beach from property in WV to sell you.

No, 89 courts IGNORED THE EVIDENCE, by focusing on the technicalities of the law.

Once again the only defense the lib has of their position, is to pretend to be too stupid to understand what is being said to them.

And your doing the same, ie focusing on the technicalities of the law, instead of the evidence, supports my point too, btw.

My point stands. Trump and his supporters had/have just cause to question the election. The pretense by lefties that doing so is evidence of Trump being anti-democratic or authoritarian or some such bullshit,

is bullshit.

 

[Correll]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

I think he knows that. NOte how he avoided any discussion of evidence, and focused on technical legal matters.

Some people believe that if an Authority says something, that it DEFINES REALITY.

 

[Correll]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

The right wing Supreme Court covered for Biden?

His post was THREE short sentences. He provided an example, clearly stated to be his example, to illustrate his point.

You ignored his example to post a strawman of your own.


That is they type of tactic a person would use, when they know that their position is wrong.

 

[citygator]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

I think he knows that. NOte how he avoided any discussion of evidence, and focused on technical legal matters.

Some people believe that if an Authority says something, that it DEFINES REALITY.

Listen. In order to believe your bullshit story you have to believe:

• Republicans are too dumb to find someone with standing to sue 89 times
• You have to believe that 89 courts including well over half with conservative makeup ignored the truth of fraud and sided with cheaters
• You have to ignore that when the Republicans were point blank asked in court many times whether they were alleging fraud they ALL said “no”
• You have to ignore that every single institution and individual accusing the election software and hardware vendors of fraud have issued apologies or clarifications claiming they are not accusing them of wrong doing
• You have to ignore that every recount validated every election result
• You have to ignore every post mortem on the election pointed to Trumps loss in suburban Republican controlled areas was the fact that led to his loss and that he picked up votes in urban areas
• I can go on for two hours.
  
  

 

[SavannahMann]

From what I heard, the courts refused to listen to the evidence and threw the challenges out on procedural grounds or legalistic technical reasons, not because the evidence failed to prove anything

You heard wrong. In fact, the “plaintiff” Giuliani specifically said multiple times they were not claiming fraud.

Interesting. I claim that the courts refused to look at actual evidence and threw the cases out of procedural and legalistic technical grounds, not because the evidence failed to prove anything,

and you respond with a comment about a legal technicality.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant. If that plant is dead.

Interesting you neglect to admit that all one has to have is standing and evidence to bring a court case and all those cases were thrown out for both.

That's all BS! As an example, Texas had standing (although the justices claimed that Texas did not). Texas had evidence but ir was not allowed to be presented.

I think he knows that. NOte how he avoided any discussion of evidence, and focused on technical legal matters.

Some people believe that if an Authority says something, that it DEFINES REALITY.

In 1914 Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by the Black Hand. Austria demanded the right to investigate the matter. Serbia offered to allow Austria to observe the investigation. Austria’s note was called an Ultimatum.

An Ultimatum is do what we demand or it will be war threat.

Texas demanded that other states be disenfranchised because they had not investigated the allegations to the satisfaction of Texas.

Texas as one example has executed at least one innocent man. Cameron Todd Willingham. Texas refused to launch an investigation into the crime with experts as requested. They refused evidence that they had executed an innocent man. If another state demanded it by a lawsuit the court would throw it out. Lack of standing.

There is no constitutional provision for that. There is no part of the Constitution or precedent that says the election results from one state have to be approved by another.

Now. Take a moment and imagine what would be the result if the Supreme Court had granted the motion and ordered the action taken.

That would be the end of elections in this nation. Seriously. The end. If Texas prevented one person from voting, New York would file a lawsuit demanding Texas’ results were inaccurate because of that action and should be thrown out.

Every State would send Poll Observers to every other state. Every state would demand that other states results be thrown out because of irregularities.

Now. The states in question, including Georgia, said the election was run properly and the results were accurate. The Republicans in Charge said this.

Let me tell you the result of this CT insanity in Georgia. All the Top Tier Republicans are not running for re-election. They are all withdrawing. So who will run? Nuts who believe this crap. Nuts who can appeal to 60 percent of the Republican Party, but less than half the population. We will see Democrats take the top posts for the first time since Clinton was President.

All you have done with this nonsense is insure Democrats will win next year in Georgia. Stacey Abrams or someone like her will be Governor. Not because of cheating or other insane ideals. But because of the collective delusion that refuses to accept that your savior was disliked by people in large enough numbers to lose.

So enjoy. Republicans are headed for the minority. And instead of looking towards the future and becoming more populist to win is determined to rewrite history.

 

[Shelzin]

Listen. In order to believe your bullshit story you have to believe:

• Republicans are too dumb to find someone with standing to sue 89 times
• You have to believe that 89 courts including well over half with conservative makeup ignored the truth of fraud and sided with cheaters
• You have to ignore that when the Republicans were point blank asked in court many times whether they were alleging fraud they ALL said “no”
• You have to ignore that every single institution and individual accusing the election software and hardware vendors of fraud have issued apologies or clarifications claiming they are not accusing them of wrong doing
• You have to ignore that every recount validated every election result
• You have to ignore every post mortem on the election pointed to Trumps loss in suburban Republican controlled areas was the fact that led to his loss and that he picked up votes in urban areas
• I can go on for two hours.

I agree with what is said here, and frankly he just explains it way better than I can. I ask that you watch it, not agree with it. Just watch it. It's been said that understanding one another is paramount at these times.

 

[citygator]

Listen. In order to believe your bullshit story you have to believe:

• Republicans are too dumb to find someone with standing to sue 89 times
• You have to believe that 89 courts including well over half with conservative makeup ignored the truth of fraud and sided with cheaters
• You have to ignore that when the Republicans were point blank asked in court many times whether they were alleging fraud they ALL said “no”
• You have to ignore that every single institution and individual accusing the election software and hardware vendors of fraud have issued apologies or clarifications claiming they are not accusing them of wrong doing
• You have to ignore that every recount validated every election result
• You have to ignore every post mortem on the election pointed to Trumps loss in suburban Republican controlled areas was the fact that led to his loss and that he picked up votes in urban areas
• I can go on for two hours.

I agree with what is said here, and frankly he just explains it way better than I can. I ask that you watch it, not agree with it. Just watch it. It's been said that understanding one another is paramount at these times.

Ignores the fact that every ruling in courts with standing ruled against fraud. Buzz off with your straw man. There is ZERO evidence of meaningful fraud. Zero.

 

[Shelzin]

Ignores the fact that every ruling in courts with standing ruled against fraud. Buzz off with your straw man. There is ZERO evidence of meaningful fraud. Zero.

You didn't watch it.

 

[citygator]

Ignores the fact that every ruling in courts with standing ruled against fraud. Buzz off with your straw man. There is ZERO evidence of meaningful fraud. Zero.

You didn't watch it.

Sure I did. Argued that the 6-3 majority wasn’t right... well it was a 6-3 majority by definition it was right. Quoted the dissent that none of the complaints affected this election as well... you miss that?