I'm sure there are plenty of politicians that haven't been compromised. I think the longer you're in politics, the more likely it is that you've been blackmailed or bought out. That's why I'm fixated on the career politician part. The odds that a guy like Biden or McConnell being compromised over a 50 year career are statistically higher than an already wealthy man who got into politics at 70. I do think the chances of Trump being blackmailed are considerably higher than zero percent tho.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
As it pertains to President, no one's vote really matters unless they are in one of the 7 states that are actually close. Here in Iowa, we are not in one of those states.
Do you still vote for the local stuff, or abstain altogether?
I used to refuse to vote for that very reason. People would get mad at me and I'd say no vote is my vote.
Ukraine's parliament voted to end its neutral status with regard to NATO after Russia annexed part of its country in 2014 (Crimea). There have been relationships between Ukraine and NATO going back to 1994, but Ukraine was not seeking to deepen those until their sovereignty was violated.
That timeline doesn't line up with what I've seen. Not saying you're wrong.
Fryowa
Administrator
I vote for the local and state stuff unless I have no idea about the people running. Like city council, mayor, county supervisor, etc. I'm usually close enough to the local goings on to make a decision. Judges I typically don't vote for because I know zero about them. For state stuff I typically vote for who I think is the most libertarian type candidate with respect to the economy. If the economy is happy, everyone's happy and typically life is good in general. I don't vote based on what I call moral or religious positions. In my experience people who run for office and make moralistic issues their main campaign points typically either don't have a good enough understanding of economics to make what I think are sound decisions, or they don't care. Economic issues affect me directly, I can make personal moral choices for myself and as long as I keep my side of the street clean I sleep well at night. If everyone did the same we'd all be good but I digress..
So to answer what I think you were getting at, I'm going to abstain from the presidential race, probably won't vote on judges because I couldn't tell you anything about them and they don't affect me, and others I will vote for based on how think they'd side on economic issues. I do not side with Trump or Harris on their economic policies.
My hope is one day we will have centrist republicans and democrats like we did back when I was a kid, but we won't. Is what it is. If I'm still alive in 4 years and there's a presidential candidate who trips my trigger I'll vote. Based on the way it's going with the extreme polarization happening, I'm not holding my breath.
I couldn't care less which party someone is in. It's not like I think all democrats are corrupt and all politicians are innocent. The reason anyone would lie is for political gain. Are they promised something behind the scene? Who knows. Look at the one Capitol Police office gained for being so outspoken after Jan 6th. Maybe he's telling the truth and maybe he's not. But you definitely can't say there's nothing to gain by lying. And Trump's presidencies were 4 of the most peaceful years the US has had. What's so dangerous about him? My history isn't perfect on WW2 do I'm not sure if this, but did Hitler wait until his second term to show his true colors?
The"enemy within" deal is really scary. You say Trump isn't an enemy. But if what people are saying about him is true, then he's absolutely the enemy.
He said he might use the military to root out the corruption. Here's my thoughts on that. If there really is corruption (the kind that starts foreign wars, cater to the demands of foreign leaders due to blackmail, cater to the cartel for financial gain) then it really needs rooted out and the military might be the only way. I don't trust Trump enough to go down that route and it is scary. But if he is correct (and he knows whether he is or not) than saying it and doing it would be the greatest thing a president has ever done. But if he's lying, then he is definitely the enemy within. That's the bad part. We've gotten to the point where one side is good and one side is bad. Like really bad. And it very well could get really bad in the next couple months. Because both sides know if they're the good guy or not. Should the democrats give up power if Trump is the bad guy? I don't think they should. Should Trump lead a revolution if he really is the good guy and he knows first hand that the corruption is that bad? I won't answer that one.
Dude I gotta say. I've always heard, and experienced the saying conservatives think with their brain and liberals think with their hearts. So when I see guys just get instantly mad at anyone who defends Trump it makes me laugh. But you're without a doubt the most logical person on the board. So the way you think intrigues the hell out of me.
Serious question. Where do you get your info? I don't watch any news at all so I get all my info from scrolling Twitter. (Save the laughs) my algorithm is basically 100% responsible for the dots I've connected. I'm my mind, I've figured it all out and the other side just doesn't pay enough attention. But I don't believe that for a second with you. That means you've seen a million things that connected the dots for you to believe what you do. And I have no doubt you're just as convinced as I am that you've figured it all out. That means either one of is is a dope or we're both being played. I don't think your a dope and I very much so don't think I am. So we've gotta be getting played. Fucking social media man....
Fryowa
Administrator
Ukraine is a sovereign country recognized by every other country on the planet other than Russia and a couple that Russia influences.
I've read extensively on the topic. And you know what? What was true 4 decades ago is not true today. You're stuck in this crazy rut that nothing can or should change/evolve.
- People thought Trump was a good guy before his presidency so they can't change their minds.
- Ukraine was part of the USSR at one point way back so it's fair game to Russian attacks now.
- Someone said 40 years ago NATO shouldn't expand so it can't expand.
I mean if you want to talk about research, have you ever looked at why NATO is expanding? Why countries want to join? It's not to attack anyone. It's to protect themselves from aggressors like Putin. But we should just say, "Nope. Sorry. Germany took their wall down 35 years ago and they said they didn't want us to let anyone else in..."
That's frickin' madness. Total craziness.
But for a second let's look at it from your perspective. You want NATO to hold up their end of some mythical deal by not expanding. Well, any deal has to have at least two sides. Tell me what deal Russia was holding up when it drove tanks in to Kyiv and destroyed civilians' towns, bombed hospitals, took over land, executed POWs, hire North Korean troops because it's running out of it's own. You are just getting crazier by the second here man.
What Russia did to Ukraine IS EXACTLY WHY COUNTRIES WANT TO JOIN NATO. Come on man. You're intelligent enough to see it. You gotta put down the Joe Rogan and Alex Jones peyote pipes and use your brain. This isn't some conspiracy, the government didn't shoot Trumps ear off, and there isn't a secret society in Washington trying to control Trump's media coverage. Our government can't even keep nuclear secrets with top secret information, you think there's this ultra complex conspiracy group and everyone has just shut up about it?
You're getting so far off in the weeds lately with all this stuff it's starting to feel like a flat earth thing. I don't know what real value there is in even conversing on this stuff.
Fryowa
Administrator
Do you think Hitler made it so far because his speech wasn't silenced earlier or because he silenced his critics speech? I think throughout history, the side trying to silence speech were the bad guys.
Part of me thinks you're right about the guardrails in place. The other part of me thinks it's still possible if you corrupt those guardrails over decades. In my option, it's more likely that the corruption's goal is to destroy America than it is to take over the world.
Yea, that's kind of where I am at. I do want to want still vote at the state and Congressional level so that's probably where I end up.
A well-reasoned approach.
There is another interesting discussion to be had some day about the libertarian-leaning elements of the GOP (an important but shrinking group) and the more "state-imposed virtue" elements (a growing group, probably best exemplified by JD Vance). I have heard these collectively referred to as the "barstool sports conservatives" and the more Christian Nationalist wing, respectively. Interesting groups in that they generally agree on some things (e.g. Trump), but can disagree vehemently on others. I think both elements can raise valid points that are worth considering, though Christian Nationalism rejects a lot of basic Bill of Right freedoms in favor of elevating one particular ideology above others.
I agree that Ukraine is it's own country so not sure why you said that.
So in one breath you say yiu read extensively on the topic and the next breath you call it a mythical deal. Not sure what to think if that. It was either a deal at the time or it wasn't. Did your extensive reading lead you to believe there wasn't a deal? If so, just lead with that and say your research showed no deal was actually made.
- I specifically said people can change their minds on Trump.
-I never said that. I said I don't care if they do. Meaning we have our own problems we can fix before trying to save everyone else. And by save everyone else I mean get half of their male population killed
-i didn't say they can't expand. It's like you're arguing as long as it changed for the better for us, all is good regardless of the other side. I'm arguing that it's probably still not good for the other side, therefore they were provoked.
We don't have to never let anyone in. My point is, sometimes there are consequences for letting a country in and in NY opinion those consequences (WW3 and possible nukes) aren't worth it.
The timeline I'm referring to (the one you read extensively on and CP87 refutes says the NATO talks came right before the invasion.
There's no secret society. But there's almost certainly bribery and blackmail going on. Are you saying there's not?
Whats wrong with Rogan? Do you listen to him 6o form that opinion or maybe just seen some short clips?
On a side note, Trump is on Rogan today. That should be interesting.
1 - No. But if Russia brought nukes to Cuba would the fact that they haven't attacked yet me a good argument for why it's no big deal.
2 - Is your question "should they attack them" or "would it be understandable why they would want to"? My answer to the first question is no and the second question is yes.
3 - Again, is your question "should we", or "would we"? Because I could easily see the US using the threat of force in that situation. I wouldn't feel comfortable if Russia had free rain to set nukes right outside of Texas.
Whats wrong with Twitter? It's the one place that shows both sides. You think CNN or Fox News would be better? How about Facebook where Zuck openly admitted the government persuaded them to suppress info?
Hay Man
Member
This is another thing I worry about, the Christian Right and their push to make this country a Christian nation. For those of us that are atheist or any of the other thousands of religions worldwide, having a Christian nation will turn us into just another radicalized version of the countries we see. This country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Why is that so hard for them to follow? Picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be followed is not the way to go.
Hay Man
Member
Elon Musk runs Twitter. A little biased, don't you think.
