Trump Supporters

[madsweeney]

Biden is president. Open borders, soft on crime, loan forgiveness is not far left enough for you? They can't call an criminal immigrant illegal and they can't figure out what a woman is.

Same difference if you ask me.

Open boarders...gross exaggeration but a cute talking point. All credibility lost when the Republicans rejected a bill to actually act on it, even though they authored it and it had bi-partisan support
Soft on crime - you do realize judges have to sentence according to the laws put in place by the legislature? How well did the "tough on crime" policies of the 80s/90s help? oh, crime skyrocketed?
Loan forgiveness...not a policy I support but I do see a benefit. Old farts have no clue how much more difficult it is for people in their 20's/30's. Long gone are the days of part time watering jobs paying for college, and a 40k/year career being enough to buy a house. Average college loan is more than what people paid for college and their first house 30 years ago.

Stop watching political entertainment shows exploiting your emotions for revenue. Get out in the world and listen to people and maybe then you wouldn't sound like an out of touch fool.

[madsweeney]

So is there really evidence?

I think all of us need to back up off the Idea of news sources passing things off as fact when they use words like "allegedly" "apparently" "anonymous source" etc, etc. All those words are used to preface the rest of their story and to obfuscate any accountability when it turns out wrong. This happens on both sides.

But again, my bad for jumping in the middle of the convo.

There is evidence of Trump's requests and the deaths thanks to freedom of information act. using sources that have access to FOI requests (so we all don't have to make the same request millions of times) and/or sources that have access to confidential information (again, something we don't) is necessary to understand what is going on...or do you suggest we just blindly trust the government? Because, that's exactly what you're doing.

[madsweeney]

[Willie Pep 229]

Open boarders...gross exaggeration but a cute talking point. All credibility lost when the Republicans rejected a bill to actually act on it, even though they authored it and it had bi-partisan support
Soft on crime - you do realize judges have to sentence according to the laws put in place by the legislature? How well did the "tough on crime" policies of the 80s/90s help? oh, crime skyrocketed?
Loan forgiveness...not a policy I support but I do see a benefit. Old farts have no clue how much more difficult it is for people in their 20's/30's. Long gone are the days of part time watering jobs paying for college, and a 40k/year career being enough to buy a house. Average college loan is more than what people paid for college and their first house 30 years ago.

Stop watching political entertainment shows exploiting your emotions for revenue. Get out in the world and listen to people and maybe then you wouldn't sound like an out of touch fool.

I have never understood the whole president=less crime nonsense. You need to deal with your governor on that one.

This is been a bogus Conservative talking point since the 1988 H.W. Bush - Dukakis election when "Sonny boy" W Bush created Willy Horton politics.

At least when Nixon ran on "law and order" in 1968 it made some sense at the national level.

But it is not the job of the president to worry about street crime and this is a basic problem with our republic today.

We are a federal system originally designed to have national issues dealt with at the national level and local issues at the local level.

Republicans today howl about a "too powerful" federal government and then proceed to suffer from GMS (Great Man Syndrome) where they want one guy to solve all their problems.

They cry I need my gun to protect myself from the tyranny of government and then throw in with one guy. Can't they see how obvious this mistake is? Why can't they see it?

They really don't want civic responsibility they want to vote once every four years and then give away their citizenship and become passive subjects. So long as the President sounds like their ministers. Hell, they don't even mind the sexual preversion so long as he says the right thing.

They want a minister to promise them salvation and eternal bliss.

Conservative is no longer an ideology it is a religious dogma.

To them Liberals a demons; RINOs are heretics.

They just want someone to sing the hosannas with them and they will sing back "everything is great again" even if it isn't.

Religion brings solace. OK I get that, but when all a candidate has to do it make the right noise, promise magical bliss, we have a problem.

With the GOP, it vote when we tell you and give us your tithe and we'll say anything you want to hear. They have mastered politics; play it to the max; to the tyrannical preversion of theocracy.

The GOP no longer knows how to govern, only how to play politics. And they play it well, but we need government not just another tax cut. That's part of the dogma.

Sorry, but no, tax cuts don't fix everything.

[STREET CLEANER]

Open boarders...gross exaggeration but a cute talking point. All credibility lost when the Republicans rejected a bill to actually act on it, even though they authored it and it had bi-partisan support
Soft on crime - you do realize judges have to sentence according to the laws put in place by the legislature? How well did the "tough on crime" policies of the 80s/90s help? oh, crime skyrocketed?
Loan forgiveness...not a policy I support but I do see a benefit. Old farts have no clue how much more difficult it is for people in their 20's/30's. Long gone are the days of part time watering jobs paying for college, and a 40k/year career being enough to buy a house. Average college loan is more than what people paid for college and their first house 30 years ago.

Stop watching political entertainment shows exploiting your emotions for revenue. Get out in the world and listen to people and maybe then you wouldn't sound like an out of touch fool.

You are all over the place here.

[-MEGA-]

There is evidence of Trump's requests and the deaths thanks to freedom of information act. using sources that have access to FOI requests (so we all don't have to make the same request millions of times) and/or sources that have access to confidential information (again, something we don't) is necessary to understand what is going on...or do you suggest we just blindly trust the government? Because, that's exactly what you're doing.

No. I'm saying we should stick to what very little things we do know to be true and not get caught up in drawing the parallels that the news outlets and many other sources do, including the government. Especially, we shouldn't be using them in argument form. Its ok for us to not know everything on a subject or even be wrong.

I know this takes alot of fun out of things but I feel we've gotten to far away from the rational discussions by using these sources as fact and as the bulk of argument.


For example, you said "There is evidence of Trump's requests and the deaths thanks to freedom of information act." I would'nt argue this cause both these things are true so my next question would be "ok, so what does this tell you" or something along those lines and we would go from there and probably end up meeting on some sort of middle ground somewhere.

Instead we get the current formula. Disputing sht ad-nauseum that 90 percent isnt even true to begin with.

[madsweeney]

You are all over the place here.

LMFAO, direct rebuttals to your claims is "all over the place" sounds more like you're ignorant of the issues.

[madsweeney]

No. I'm saying we should stick to what very little things we do know to be true and not get caught up in drawing the parallels that the news outlets and many other sources do, including the government. Especially, we shouldn't be using them in argument form. Its ok for us to not know everything on a subject or even be wrong.

I know this takes alot of fun out of things but I feel we've gotten to far away from the rational discussions by using these sources as fact and as the bulk of argument.


For example, you said "There is evidence of Trump's requests and the deaths thanks to freedom of information act." I would'nt argue this cause both these things are true so my next question would be "ok, so what does this tell you" or something along those lines and we would go from there and probably end up meeting on some sort of middle ground somewhere.

Instead we get the current formula. Disputing sht ad-nauseum that 90 percent isnt even true to begin with.

Heres my biggest issue with your statement...when multiple sources (and of varying political spectrum) corroberate the information, its pretty safe to trust the validity, unless better information is given from a more reliable source. That is key to rational discussion, not dismissing sources because you don't like them. I go out of my way to only post from news orgs that have high credibility and I avoid any partisan sites as sources, except Fox when they also corroborate the information, like with this issue.

Were beating a dead horse now. I do suggest you look into this issue more before dismissing it but we don't need to go in circles.

[Shadoww702]

Heres my biggest issue with your statement...when multiple sources (and of varying political spectrum) corroberate the information, its pretty safe to trust the validity, unless better information is given from a more reliable source. That is key to rational discussion, not dismissing sources because you don't like them. I go out of my way to only post from news orgs that have high credibility and I avoid any partisan sites as sources, except Fox when they also corroborate the information, like with this issue.

Were beating a dead horse now. I do suggest you look into this issue more before dismissing it but we don't need to go in circles.

STFU!!! And Quit CRYING

Screenshot_20240418_121305_Chrome.jpg

[STREET CLEANER]

LMFAO, direct rebuttals to your claims is "all over the place" sounds more like you're ignorant of the issues.

You are going into the far past instead of staying current.

You like to name call which is the typical reaction of a liberal when there is even a slight disagreement. It shows you can't hold a conversation without getting emotional. I did not know that you were this sensitive.