It ain't about Trump
-
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
But there is still enough that the election should be looked into.
I'd say having somebody independent looking at how well the electoral system works would always be a good idea irrespective of whether specific claims of fraud have been made.
The problem is that none of the claims made have been substantiated in any way. The Trump team make completely over-the-top claims in public, but when it comes to presenting them in court, they don't produce anything at all, and even fail to repeat what they've been claiming in a non-legal setting. It has been a clown show.
-
I agree with @Mik that a voting process review is worthwhile - just for the basic fact that so many people call it into question now.
Trump is poisoning the discussion though. No matter how bipartisan or professional the people put against the inquiry are, unless it shows that there was MASSIVE voting fraud - a good chunk of the population is going to brush it off as deep state drivel.
-
TG nailed it
It’s is only about trump. He is not the GOP. He is an outsider.
The right side of this forum is always talking about TDS. Not RDS. Republican derangement syndrome. Because no one with TDS is arguing against the right.
They argue against the travesty of his presidency.
And travesty it is. Or more accurately, was.
-
@bachophile said in It ain't about Trump:
TG nailed it
It’s is only about trump. He is not the GOP. He is an outsider.
The right side of this forum is always talking about TDS. Not RDS. Republican derangement syndrome. Because no one with TDS is arguing against the right.
They argue against the travesty of his presidency.
And travesty it is. Or more accurately, was.
You forget the Bush II administration and the Romney campaign. The Democrats' behavior there was nearly as corrosive as their TDS. This politics of personal attack is not something new or unique to Trump.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
@doctor-phibes said in It ain't about Trump:
@loki said in It ain't about Trump:
@doctor-phibes said in It ain't about Trump:
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
I have to agree. Trump became the focal point, but it was never about him. He would never have been my choice for president but for his policies and accomplishments.
I suspect the mantle will be taken up by any number of candidates who approve of the policies and goals.
You agree with continuing the fight to prove that the Democrats stole the election?
You agree with refusing to concede that Biden is President?
The way these threads emerge it appears that people believe this is a viable thing. Yeah a couple do but for the vast majority the train has left the station, even with many that still put up a fight.
It just doesn’t matter. Yeah the hole created by Trumps departure is massive for people on both sides but if you can see past it, you can see what the future looks like and find a new way to be relevant.
The reason I asked the question is that the supposed fraud is what the article is primarily about. I was kind of surprised by Mik's response, and thought I'd probably misunderstood what he was agreeing with.
You did. There would have been no Trump had his ideas in 2016 and his policies 2017-2020 not resonated with a whole lot of Americans. That's not going away.
As far as the election battle, I think there is sufficient reason to believe cheating occurred. On what scale and to what effect I don't know. But there are blocks of votes unanimously Democratic that are statistically impossible. The question is whether there is enough evidence to pursue it.
I don't find the Biden win versus the downballot GOP victories impossible. Trump is a polarizing figure. But there is still enough that the election should be looked into. One of two things will happen - confidence will be restored in the process or fraud will be brought to light. Both of those are worthwhile goals.
That says it.
And no TG, it was NOT about Trump 100%. What we on the Right have been supporting predate Trump by literally decades. At least as far back as the 1970s. It's a political movement that really began forming in the early 1970's. That's when the democrats first (to my memory) began basing their politics on "firsts" - Jimmy Carter was "the first outsider". That was his only qualification for office - he wasn't from Washington DC. Also, he had socialist viewpoints, though extremely mild by comparison with today's democrat ideology.
The result of the Jimmy Carter "the first" experiment was 25% mortgage rates, financing interest rates across the board hooting up so high some loan rates were as much as 50% or more. His foreign policy resulted in a pro-west leader of Iran being driven out of Iran by Islamists and the beginning of radical Islam. Gas prices went through the roof, and people had to sit in long lines for hours hoping they could but a few gallons of gas for their car. That resulted in the Right electing Reagan, a man who stood for the people instead of an ideology. After him came the first Bush, Clinton, the second Bush, Obama...
Carter was a nice guy. He loved America, and actually wanted to do right by its citizens - but he was utterly inept as a leader, but so totally convinced his views were the Right ones that he just kept on dragging us into the toilet. The democrat party began showing us that Mart policies wasn't what motivated them, power was what motivated them. The first Bush was also a nice man. But he got elected simply because he had been Reagan's VP. But as a leader, he was more interested in the government establishment than he was the people, so now the democrat party was driven by a desire for power, the republican party became a bunch of feckless sellouts more interested in being accepted by the Washington social scene and the "establishment", and lining their pockets. Then Bill Clinton, the most corrupt man to ever occupy the White House. Power and greed became the only thing that mattered to the democrats, and many of the republicans. This wasn't the point where the democrat base began losing their minds, but it was the point where it kicked into high gear.
Bush II, another very nice man, meant well, but was too much like his father. Then Obama, another "first". The beginning of identity politics, a closet Marxist whose stated goal was to "bring America down to the level of other countries". Hate, political correctness, Socialism, racial division, etc became weaponized, and the view that the people were too stupid to know what was the best for them became the overall view held by the democrats.
Obama even stated that straight out many times.That was the point where the citizens started the Tea Party movement, and the point where the democrat party took the gloves off and showed their true colors - demonize your opponent, divide them into little groups, and use hate as a weapon. The Tea Party movement was ridiculed, called "tea baggers", the leftwing base jumped right in like a bunch of trained monkeys. Trump was the result. But it is not and never was about Trump. This is a struggle between the People and the Left. Good vs evil.
Choose your side, but don't misrepresent things based on your personal opinions. The struggle WILL continue. Trump was just the first one with the money and balls needed to pull the scab off the festering sore known as the Left.
-
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
This politics of personal attack is not something new or unique to Trump.
Correct. It can be directly traced back to the late Lee Atwater. Prior to his arrival on the scene there existed a certain degree of civility and self restraint.
No surprise I'm sure but I too agree with what TG and bach wrote above.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@renauda said in It ain't about Trump:
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
This politics of personal attack is not something new or unique to Trump.
Correct. It can be directly traced back to the late Lee Atwater. Prior to his arrival on the scene there existed a certain degree of civility and self restraint.
Now you've done it - you've besmirched the memory of the Sainted Raygun (Peace be upon him)
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@doctor-phibes no. Atwater was with Bush I.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
He was also part of the Reagan administration.
I have be honest and admit I'd never heard of him until about 30 minutes ago, but the internet's a wonderful thing.
-
@bachophile said in It ain't about Trump:
TG nailed it
It’s is only about trump. He is not the GOP. He is an outsider.
The right side of this forum is always talking about TDS. Not RDS. Republican derangement syndrome. Because no one with TDS is arguing against the right.
They argue against the travesty of his presidency.
And travesty it is. Or more accurately, was.
I was around for Bush the Nazi.
-
@renauda said in It ain't about Trump:
@mik said in It ain't about Trump:
This politics of personal attack is not something new or unique to Trump.
Correct. It can be directly traced back to the late Lee Atwater. Prior to his arrival on the scene there existed a certain degree of civility and self restraint.
No surprise I'm sure but I too agree with what TG and bach wrote above.
Lee was wicked good with his elbows, but I'm surprised a student of history such as yourself can't drag up some personal attacks from the Lincoln campaign and before...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
