Typical Trumper argument: Deflect, refuse to answer, try to change the subject by the way I didn't ask you a question or ask you to play a game, I made an assumption that you almost instantly proved to be true
Defecting from your childish games...yep. Now, answer the big-boy questions I just asked you. Tell us what are five policies that Harris is for, and the reason why you are voting for her.
Did I say Ukraine? So, where have we sent troops since the Vietnam war? Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Libya, Syria. What has that gained us other than more death of sons and daughters. And dispense with the condescending insults.
Yay! A whataboutism... classic trumpian defense. I'd be happy to discuss methods to quantify divisiveness in a bit. But please share with us Obama, Biden and Harris rapes, insurrections, and desire for military retribution of political enemies. That would be a short conversation. You sure do assume to know my motivations and thought process. I already said the editing is sketchy and preys on trump's total lack of credibility and well earned distrust by ordinary citizens. "In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Trump suggested he might call in the U.S. military after the presidential election to handle “radical-left lunatics” such as Schiff, whom he called an “enemy from within.” When asked about those comments at a town hall in Georgia on Tuesday, Trump doubled down, saying Democrats such as Pelosi are “evil” and more dangerous than China or Russia." Not too divisive, amirite!? Schiff and Pelosi take Trump threats seriously, and as more proof he's unfit for office
Please grasshopper. Then what exactly is Trump referring to since the only military action there is any debate on is Ukraine? You get there is an election right?
I did read that into his statement, but at the very least, someone who is "inarticulate" should never be president. Every job description I see says you must be able to communicate articulately. His statements in the past have painted himself as a dictator who would seek retribution so this latest "inarticulate" statement doesn't give him a pass.
i'm happy to answer that but I'm curious what makes your question a "big boy question. is it because you were asking it? Do you like to think of yourself as a "big boy"? Seems to me that calling someone a communist when you don't even know what a communist is is a little boy problem, not a big boy problem, but what do I know?
The thread title is fairly reasonable, when you look at what he said. Trump wants nine barrels trained on her face, with people shooting at her. Whether it's some foreign army shooting at her or nine buck-toothed hillbillies from Appalachia/Texas, doesn't matter. That is the kind of talk from national politicians that inspires a mentally-disturbed person to load a gun and start stalking someone. That is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. If he wants to say that if Cheney wants to send Americans to war, she should put on a uniform and lead the way, then fine. There is no articulated desire to see her on the losing end of a hail of bullets. Especially coming from a draft dodger and someone who was afraid of imaginary hits in a game of football he never played. Trump has no right to question anyone else about their patriotism when it comes to fighting for their country. He gave up that moral high ground presumably before he started raping women and cheating on his taxes (you can never be sure with Trump, however). I could see this resulting in another $90 million lawsuit against Trump. Eventually, half of Congress will need Secret Service protection.
Man I’m upset I just had time to check this thread. I could have easily outlined the replies here by the usual suspects but it’s still enjoyable reading it all.
Def. I'll give you an editable template for next time; Most here : "Man, it is totally unacceptable for Trump to suggest, on a national stage, that Liz Cheney be shot in the face by 9 people!"* Trumpies : "Dindu nuffin!" * You can fill in that blank as needed.
Anyway, @Gatorrick22 here are yoor 5 reasons: 1. first and foremost I am concerned with the slide of this country toward Christo-fascism. Christianity has never been the official religion of the United States and in fact most of the founding fathers were vehemently against the establishment of any state religion whatsoever. The advisors in Trump's orbit who will undoubtedly have a lot of sway Want to reform the country into a Cristo-fascist state. I don't want that and it is not at all likely to happen under a Harris administration 2. Along the same lines as number one above, there is a concerted push to call for a constitutional convention and change the constitution along the lines I have already discussed. This is a conservative movement That isn't reported on much and is lost in the shuffle of the daily election outrage. The Democrats are not interested in reforming the constitution via a constitutional convention to make the country more Christian. 3. I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare but the alternative was and is worse. The GOP has a stated purpose to dismantle Obamacare with no intent to replace it with something that would be better. They want to go back to the old system, and have stated as much. Having lived in Europe I'm a big fan of socialized medicine and all of the horror stories about it are false. My subpoint here would be that the way drug companies abuse the system in the US versus the way they can't in every other country that has the balls to regulate them (which is basically every other country on earth) is criminal. Harris has stated she will do something about this and has laid out specific policies along those lines. I don't think Trump will do anything to reign in drug companies. 4. The economy is doing great and I don't want to see it get screwed up by another supply side giveaway. Harris is tax proposals will directly affect me and yet I am not against them because I think that it is a policy failure to allow people to mass more wealth than they or their heirs could ever spend. We see time and time again in this country that Democratic policies lead to more equity and greater prosperity across-the-board, while letting the very rich consolidate more resources has the opposite effect. It's pretty obvious which side will do better in this regard 5. Freedom, generally: I am not at all interested in a government that is going to dictate how people handle their own personal health issues, especially women. State restrictions on abortion and unconstitutional attempts to limit travel for abortion and other reproductive healthcare, to jail people who engage in healthcare, and to otherwise legislate what is essentially a dark ages attitude toward medicine is antithetical to freedom and my personal beliefs. I could go on but you only asked for five reasons. I didn't even get to climate change, the hacks on the Supreme Court, etc., etc.
Always cracks me up when they ask us to name Harris’ policies all the while they completely avoid the fact that Trump literally has no plan or policies himself. “Cheap gas and groceries” are not policies. His policies are literally tax cuts for the rich, tariffs on everything because he’s a moron who can’t come up with anything else, and “drill baby, drill.”
