2024

[seacoaster]

The fever hasn't broken, "there's a storm coming".

So long as you guys admit the "fever" affects both the extreme left and right. It's all dangerous. But the NYT cheery picking doesn't help anyone except maybe the NYT. This is starting all over again with the MSM raising the temperature, creating the "storm".

I do agree that the demonization is an issue infecting both sides. But the right's willingness to flirt with and say things that promote and countenance violence as a solution is distinctive, maybe not uniform, but a much more regular way of expressing what will be done in the event of an electoral loss. And part of this reality is the piece of luggage that always seems to accompany it: the clarion call of the "Second Amendment." To my knowledge, there weren't many Democrats or left of center types hanging out in the Speaker's office on the afternoon of January 6, 2021

[MDlaxfan76]

The fever hasn't broken, "there's a storm coming".

So long as you guys admit the "fever" affects both the extreme left and right. It's all dangerous. But the NYT cheery picking doesn't help anyone except maybe the NYT. This is starting all over again with the MSM raising the temperature, creating the "storm".

Yes, anger and hate typically begets anger and hate, violence begets violence.

And there's indeed a significant strain of such on the left, and that indeed bubbles out in various ways violently. Sometimes major conflagrations, eg riots.

And yes, the media profits from the heat and strife.

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

It's not close.

But it could be in another iteration.

And I'm sure you get the reference to the "storm" which has a very specific meaning to those on that hard right.

As to "fever", I of course mean the cultish fever of Trumpists and the Big Lie. There was a chance that the revulsion decent Republicans would feel to Jan 6 would break that fever in the party, but it did not. It's instead redoubled in intensity and denial...even more cultish.

[Peter Brown]

The fever hasn't broken, "there's a storm coming".

So long as you guys admit the "fever" affects both the extreme left and right. It's all dangerous. But the NYT cheery picking doesn't help anyone except maybe the NYT. This is starting all over again with the MSM raising the temperature, creating the "storm".

Yes, anger and hate typically begets anger and hate, violence begets violence.

And there's indeed a significant strain of such on the left, and that indeed bubbles out in various ways violently. Sometimes major conflagrations, eg riots.

And yes, the media profits from the heat and strife.

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

It's not close.

But it could be in another iteration.

And I'm sure you get the reference to the "storm" which has a very specific meaning to those on that hard right.

As to "fever", I of course mean the cultish fever of Trumpists and the Big Lie. There was a chance that the revulsion decent Republicans would feel to Jan 6 would break that fever in the party, but it did not. It's instead redoubled in intensity and denial...even more cultish.

Governor Evers of Wisconsin calling out 500 national guard troops this week because….checks notes…Republican store owners and soccer moms are going to riot?



Don’t listen to the libs of this board; they’re trying to falsely project one of the weakest parts of their ethos onto Republicans. Don’t buy into that farce.

We all know where the violence in America comes from. I listed a dozen or so examples on my previous post, last page. Anyone here can verify the data if you want. Violence in America comes from one side, and to the extent that any Republican utilizes violence, it’s always in reaction to the leftists who unilaterally cause so much damage and harm to private property and life. Think of all of the leftist riots the last few years. It’s been a while since I saw a Republican shopkeeper torch his business…

James Hodgkinson (among so many more) for some reason keeps being forgotten by MD and seacoaster.

[tech37]

The fever hasn't broken, "there's a storm coming".

So long as you guys admit the "fever" affects both the extreme left and right. It's all dangerous. But the NYT cheery picking doesn't help anyone except maybe the NYT. This is starting all over again with the MSM raising the temperature, creating the "storm".

Yes, anger and hate typically begets anger and hate, violence begets violence.

And there's indeed a significant strain of such on the left, and that indeed bubbles out in various ways violently. Sometimes major conflagrations, eg riots.

And yes, the media profits from the heat and strife.

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

It's not close.

But it could be in another iteration.

And I'm sure you get the reference to the "storm" which has a very specific meaning to those on that hard right.

As to "fever", I of course mean the cultish fever of Trumpists and the Big Lie. There was a chance that the revulsion decent Republicans would feel to Jan 6 would break that fever in the party, but it did not. It's instead redoubled in intensity and denial...even more cultish.

"cultish"? That's just silly. How about simply a reaction to four years of subterfuge driven by Dems assisted by the liberal media?

You reap what you sow. Of course you see everything from one POV only. Sad.

[youthathletics]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

My point, and not a knock at you, is when you pick a side, like you did below, implying the 'right ' will 'storm', you are then conveying that the other sides plan is working.

EDIT: just read techs post, we both are implying the same type of thing.

[a fan]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

[Peter Brown]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

When and where did ‘righties riot’?!

I must’ve missed that event.

[youthathletics]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

No, I am not blaming lefties, and I do not believe tech is saying that either. as in each of my examples, both sides are at fault for creating the situation, but the one that gets the flag thrown on them is quite often the one that was provoked....MDLAX blaming the right because they lash out.

We need the damned centrists to grow a pair and tell the extremes on both sides to shut the He77 up and knock it the F off.

[a fan]

No, I am not blaming lefties, and I do not believe tech is saying that either. as in each of my examples, both sides are at fault for creating the situation, but the one that gets the flag thrown on them is quite often the one that was provoked....MDLAX blaming the right because they lash out.

Both sides are responsible for their own actions. Agree!

[seacoaster]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

No, I am not blaming lefties, and I do not believe tech is saying that either. as in each of my examples, both sides are at fault for creating the situation, but the one that gets the flag thrown on them is quite often the one that was provoked....MDLAX blaming the right because they lash out.

We need the damned centrists to grow a pair and tell the extremes on both sides to shut the He77 up and knock it the F off.

Respectfully (and I mean that YA), this is the sort of soft-peddling, both sides'ing of the issue that doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The issue raised by the article and by me is really about violence in political context: if we don't win the election, then the other side engaged in fraud, and we are allowed to start shooting. I understand there is a need to highlight the excesses of BLM, anitfa, etc. But those movements are not part of mainstream political parties. The Right's willingness to speak in terms of violence as an option -- however it came to pass, however it seems to be provoked by the pole slashing after the play is over -- is much more present, and substantially more countenanced, by the silence of leadership.

How hard would it be for McCarthy or McConnell to chastise Gosar's malicious little cartoon? Why were both, and just about every other GOP member of the Congress, silent in respect to this "bad joke"? How hard is it to say: violence and gunplay are not options on American soil for the rectification of perceived electoral loss? You are absolutely right YA: centrists need to grow a pair and flex their muscle in the middle. But the GOP is, whether it acts like it knows it or not, quietly cultivating -- by silence -- a tacit authorization of intimidation and violence as a political option.

[Peter Brown]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

No, I am not blaming lefties, and I do not believe tech is saying that either. as in each of my examples, both sides are at fault for creating the situation, but the one that gets the flag thrown on them is quite often the one that was provoked....MDLAX blaming the right because they lash out.

We need the damned centrists to grow a pair and tell the extremes on both sides to shut the He77 up and knock it the F off.

Respectfully (and I mean that YA), this is the sort of soft-peddling, both sides'ing of the issue that doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The issue raised by the article and by me is really about violence in political context: if we don't win the election, then the other side engaged in fraud, and we are allowed to start shooting. I understand there is a need to highlight the excesses of BLM, anitfa, etc. But those movements are not part of mainstream political parties. The Right's willingness to speak in terms of violence as an option -- however it came to pass, however it seems to be provoked by the pole slashing after the play is over -- is much more present, and substantially more countenanced, by the silence of leadership.

How hard would it be for McCarthy or McConnell to chastise Gosar's malicious little cartoon? Why were both, and just about every other GOP member of the Congress, silent in respect to this "bad joke"? How hard is it to say: violence and gunplay are not options on American soil for the rectification of perceived electoral loss? You are absolutely right YA: centrists need to grow a pair and flex their muscle in the middle. But the GOP is, whether it acts like it knows it or not, quietly cultivating -- by silence -- a tacit authorization of intimidation and violence as a political option.

Seacoaster asks for constant apologies or condemnations from McConnell and crew about anything no matter how small (Gosar, e.g.), while never seeking the same from Democrats about anything no matter how large.

Here is Sen McConnell after January 6:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrecti ... pitol-riot

Sounds like condemnation.

Here is the lefts violence in 2020:

https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/riots-fol ... -up-to-2b/

And here is how Biden’s staff ‘condemned’ that:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minn ... SKBN2360SZ

Sounds like they support violence to me! (we don’t need to bring up the fact that Cackling Kamala actually donated herself to the same fund and implored others)


The gaslighting dishonesty of those who want others to ignore the fact that it has been the left which is always and has always been at the center of violence in America, is something else. James Hodgkinson anyone?

[Peter Brown]

All that said, there's no question in my mind that the danger of actually breaking our democracy, including through violence, is definitely far stronger coming from the right. Both the rhetoric and the actions of the right wing, their political representatives, their media cheerleaders and other con artists, and importantly their supporters, are far, far more strident, more violently expressed, and far more directly aimed at breaking democratic norms, guard rails, and simple decency.

I assume you are not intentionally overlooking the obvious...maybe you just fail to see what is taking place because it does not resonate. In lacrosse terms...and you were a goalie, how many times did you see either your defenseman or an attackman keep pestering the player they were matched up on. Late check to forearm, a crack on the knee cap, elbow....you get the point; then boom, the pressure cooker explodes. The same exact thing is happening in politics. In the past, you and I discussed the relevant definition of gaslighting in the political context; it is called 'political gaslighting', and it is getting worse. Some people are quiet and reserved and others are vocal and physical....it is who we are.

It is human nature at its core, like a little brother poking his sister and when the sister lashes out and gets in trouble, the little boy snickers with sadistic laughter.

So....you and tech are both implying that no matter what, it's the libs fault?

Libs riot..and they're making that choice themselves?

Righties riot...and they're doing it because the libs made them do it?

That's what you're both communicating here. Is that really what you mean?

No, I am not blaming lefties, and I do not believe tech is saying that either. as in each of my examples, both sides are at fault for creating the situation, but the one that gets the flag thrown on them is quite often the one that was provoked....MDLAX blaming the right because they lash out.

We need the damned centrists to grow a pair and tell the extremes on both sides to shut the He77 up and knock it the F off.

Respectfully (and I mean that YA), this is the sort of soft-peddling, both sides'ing of the issue that doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The issue raised by the article and by me is really about violence in political context: if we don't win the election, then the other side engaged in fraud, and we are allowed to start shooting. I understand there is a need to highlight the excesses of BLM, anitfa, etc. But those movements are not part of mainstream political parties. The Right's willingness to speak in terms of violence as an option -- however it came to pass, however it seems to be provoked by the pole slashing after the play is over -- is much more present, and substantially more countenanced, by the silence of leadership.

How hard would it be for McCarthy or McConnell to chastise Gosar's malicious little cartoon? Why were both, and just about every other GOP member of the Congress, silent in respect to this "bad joke"? How hard is it to say: violence and gunplay are not options on American soil for the rectification of perceived electoral loss? You are absolutely right YA: centrists need to grow a pair and flex their muscle in the middle. But the GOP is, whether it acts like it knows it or not, quietly cultivating -- by silence -- a tacit authorization of intimidation and violence as a political option.

Seacoaster asks for constant apologies or condemnations from McConnell and crew about anything no matter how small (Gosar, e.g.), while never seeking the same from Democrats about anything no matter how large.

Here is Sen McConnell after January 6:

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrecti ... pitol-riot

Sounds like condemnation.

Here is the lefts violence in 2020:

https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/riots-fol ... -up-to-2b/

And here is how Biden’s staff ‘condemned’ that:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minn ... SKBN2360SZ

Sounds like they support violence to me! (we don’t need to bring up the fact that Cackling Kamala actually donated herself to the same fund and implored others)


The gaslighting dishonesty of those who want others to ignore the fact that it has been the left which is always and has always been at the center of violence in America, is something else. James Hodgkinson anyone?

Even a few Democrats are complaining that Democrats won’t do squat to tone down violence.

At a press conference on Friday, Adams questioned why members of his party have not spoken out against BLM leader Hawk Newsome's calls to violence

NYC Mayor-elect Eric Adams DARES his fellow Democrats to condemn BLM activist Hawk Newsome who warned planned policing crackdown on Big Apple crime will trigger 'riots and bloodshed' in the Big Apple


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... wsome.html

‘But Republicans….’

gmafb

[a fan]

More great news for TrumpNation, Pete.

14% increase in premiums. Those corporate tax cuts were brilliant, Pete, and really trickled down to the average Trump voters, am I right?!

Do you know if doctors will accept “mean tweets from Trump” in lieu of payment, Pete?

Good luck TrumpFans!!! I’m sure “winning” the Rittenhouse verdict will help pay those bills .



https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/health/m ... index.html

[Peter Brown]

More great news for TrumpNation, Pete.

14% increase in premiums. Those corporate tax cuts were brilliant, Pete, and really trickled down to the average Trump voters, am I right?!

Do you know if doctors will accept “mean tweets from Trump” in lieu of payment, Pete?

Good luck TrumpFans!!! I’m sure “winning” the Rittenhouse verdict will help pay those bills .

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/health/m ... index.html

Well first, I don’t think anyone ‘wins’ the Rittenhouse verdict. If you pushed me to bet, I’d bet the jury convicts him on some lesser BS charge. Half of me hopes they convict him so Wisconsin voters elect a Republican Governor governor who will pardon the kid. Anyone with half of one synapse still firing upstairs recognizes self defense as clear as this case. When Democrats step in and politicize nonsense, you always lose in the end.

The rest of your post…how is Trump responsible for premium hikes 11 months after he’s gone? Seriously? I swear, liberals hate Trumpbso much because he reminds them who they really are. No responsibility. Who’s POTUS again?

[a fan]

The rest of your post…how is Trump responsible for premium hikes 11 months after he’s gone? Seriously?

You're sooooo lost, it's just sad, Pete.

You're the one who keeps telling people to vote for those little R's.

I keep telling you that all the little R's do, is shovel money as fast as they can to coastal liberal elites.

This is just another page from that book.....so instead of helping the people that voted for him, Trump shoveled more money to my wife's buds, with their multiple degrees from elite Universities. Second homes, and I'm sure third homes are in the offing.

So yes, Trump is responsible for having four years of legislation---2 of which, he had total R control of Congress----and did nothing...NOTHING...to help his average voter, his base.

And now we're dealing the inflation that comes from reckless spending coupled with reckless tax cuts, Pete. And to compound problems, because you've hilariously forgotten....Trump ran on a platform of repealing and replacing Obamacare with a better system that supposedly serves his base.

Nice job forgetting what your party's platform was, Pete.

It's almost like you don't care what you party's ideas are, and all that you care about are little R's that are devoid of policy ideas.

But sure Pete. Rittenhouse verdict. Stick it to the libs, Pete!!!

[Peter Brown]

The rest of your post…how is Trump responsible for premium hikes 11 months after he’s gone? Seriously?

You're sooooo lost, it's just sad, Pete.

You're the one who keeps telling people to vote for those little R's.

I keep telling you that all the little R's do, is shovel money as fast as they can to coastal liberal elites.

This is just another page from that book.....so instead of helping the people that voted for him, Trump shoveled more money to my wife's buds, with their multiple degrees from elite Universities. Second homes, and I'm sure third homes are in the offing.

So yes, Trump is responsible for having four years of legislation---2 of which, he had total R control of Congress----and did nothing...NOTHING...to help his average voter, his base.

And now we're dealing the inflation that comes from reckless spending coupled with reckless tax cuts, Pete. And to compound problems, because you've hilariously forgotten....Trump ran on a platform of repealing and replacing Obamacare with a better system that supposedly serves his base.

Nice job forgetting what your party's platform was, Pete.

It's almost like you don't care what you party's ideas are, and all that you care about are little R's that are devoid of policy ideas.

But sure Pete. Rittenhouse verdict. Stick it to the libs, Pete!!!

The fair verdict on Trump would have been what he accomplished through 2019, not at the end of his term as the pandemic did what it did to everything. And most of his economic numbers were solid, not the least of which was real wages adjusted for inflation.

But let’s skip that, because you keep saying I like Trump and (I gather) all his policies. That would be monumentally wrong.

I like free trade for starters. But what I truly like are good leaders. I wish a guy like Mitt wasn’t such an abysmal leader, because I think he would have been a solid POTUS with even 10% backbone. Trump is not a leader. He doesn’t attract and retain good leaders. There is very little I find attractive about the guy. Spending would be right up there for me. His inability to even address issues like Obamacare would be another.

At the end of the day, his outward mannerisms are reckless, though I suspect that in the end, his actual decisions were much less so.

Here’s the deal. You won’t need to worry your pretty little head much longer…Governor Desantis is on the way, and he will show America what it’s like to have an actual leader, with great policies, and clear thoughts. I will miss his stewardship of my state, but what we lose, we gain with a great President. 2024 can’t come soon enough for this great country.

[a fan]

But let’s skip that, because you keep saying I like Trump and (I gather) all his policies. That would be monumentally wrong.

Nope. What you keep telling the forum is: Vote R, and all your problems will be fixed.

And when I point out that's wrong, you scurry away, and tell us "look, a squirrel!"

I like free trade for starters. But what I truly like are good leaders. I wish a guy like Mitt wasn’t such an abysmal leader, because I think he would have been a solid POTUS with even 10% backbone. Trump is not a leader. He doesn’t attract and retain good leaders. There is very little I find attractive about the guy. Spending would be right up there for me. His inability to even address issues like Obamacare would be another.

Un-possible, Pete. You've been telling us for four years to vote Republican, and everything will be awesome.

You can't possibly be telling me you were lying to us? Pete...say it ain't so!

Here’s the deal. You won’t need to worry your pretty little head much longer…Governor Desantis is on the way, and he will show America what it’s like to have an actual leader, with great policies, and clear thoughts.

First of all, that's what Republicans have been telling us for decades.

Second of all....go ahead and tell me what he's done that's differently than any other legislator in America.

Hell, let's just focus on two issues we just brought up in this thread:

-how's he going to calm inflation (this answer should be hilarious)?

-how's he going to get affordable health care for 65+ Americans?

Go ahead and tell me. (you have NO CLUE how to address either)

[a fan]

The fair verdict on Trump would have been what he accomplished through 2019,

Sure.

What did he do, Pete?

He forgot to fix immigration
He forgot to repeal and replace Obamacare
He started a fake trade war with China, and now imports from China are at record levels (sweet!)
He cut taxes for the 1% and for multinational corporations (I'm sure you're in love with that)
And he passed three massive spending bills that made the Federal government bigger than ever (which you also love)

I miss any other major things? He did some nice minor things, I'll grant you that. But those are the major "accomplishments".

[Peter Brown]

But let’s skip that, because you keep saying I like Trump and (I gather) all his policies. That would be monumentally wrong.

Nope. What you keep telling the forum is: Vote R, and all your problems will be fixed.

And when I point out that's wrong, you scurry away, and tell us "look, a squirrel!"

I like free trade for starters. But what I truly like are good leaders. I wish a guy like Mitt wasn’t such an abysmal leader, because I think he would have been a solid POTUS with even 10% backbone. Trump is not a leader. He doesn’t attract and retain good leaders. There is very little I find attractive about the guy. Spending would be right up there for me. His inability to even address issues like Obamacare would be another.

Un-possible, Pete. You've been telling us for four years to vote Republican, and everything will be awesome.

You can't possibly be telling me you were lying to us? Pete...say it ain't so!

Here’s the deal. You won’t need to worry your pretty little head much longer…Governor Desantis is on the way, and he will show America what it’s like to have an actual leader, with great policies, and clear thoughts.

First of all, that's what Republicans have been telling us for decades.

Second of all....go ahead and tell me what he's done that's differently than any other legislator in America.

Hell, let's just focus on two issues we just brought up in this thread:

-how's he going to calm inflation (this answer should be hilarious)?

-how's he going to get affordable health care for 65+ Americans?

Go ahead and tell me. (you have NO CLUE how to address either)

That is ‘mostly’ true. If you vote for a Republican, your life will indeed be monumentally better. Your family will be safer. Your business will thrive. It’s like being on Wonkaland. You know it. We all know it.

As far as what Desantis does for your two issues, I have no idea what he will decide to do on the actual decisions. What I do know he will do is assemble great leaders who will collectively arrive at a great decision, no matter the issue. That, I know. Desantis surrounds himself with superb talent who don’t talk to press behind his back, and they realize there is a larger goal running Florida than scoring political points or elevating Ron…I know several well. Ron will be the first real leader america has had since Eisenhower.

The reason the lib press hates his health guy Dr. Joseph Ladapo is why the press hates Winsome Sears of Virginia. These people are beyond intelligent, and they don’t parrot party lines like the press wants.

Ron chuckles when the lib press attack his cabinet. Anyone can hear how brilliant Lapado is with one speech. When your buddies in the press attack that guy, voters see through the BS. I encourage you to continue!!!

[a fan]

That is ‘mostly’ true. If you vote for a Republican, your life will indeed be monumentally better. Your family will be safer. Your business will thrive. It’s like being on Wonkaland. You know it. We all know it.

Not even remotely true. Regardless of party in charge. my family has done great. The top 20% earners will always do fine, regardless of policy, regardless of 1st world nation, in fact.

What's at stake are the bottom 80% earners, Pete. The folks that have been getting screwed, for oh, about 40 years. Last thing we did for them? Great Society. Before that? The Gi Bill.

As far as what Desantis does for your two issues, I have no idea what he will decide to do on the actual decisions. What I do know he will do is assemble great leaders who will collectively arrive at a great decision, no matter the issue. That, I know. Desantis surrounds himself with superb talent who don’t talk to press behind his back, and they realize there is a larger goal running Florida than scoring political points or elevating Ron…I know several well. Ron will be the first real leader america has had since Eisenhower.

I'd be willing wager any amount you'd care to pony up.... that any issue you name will be unsolved after four years of DeSantis, assuming he wins. Your party doesn't know what to do about ANY major issues, which is why they have done nothing outside of enrich the liberal coastal elites every chance you give them...for decades.

I find it hilarious that you don't know what to do, either. It ain't hard. At issue is the will do do what's needed. We already know what we need to do.

When your buddies in the press attack that guy, voters see through the BS. I encourage you to continue!!!

Not my buddies, Pete. And they're not libs. They're workers for multinational corporations----the largest the world has ever seen. But sure keep telling us that people who work for multinational corporations are bomb-throwing hippy liberals. I'm sure YOU believe that...but again, where did you to to educate yourself, Pete?!