Is Trump on the brink of another run for president?

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  161 comments

By:   Jonathan Allen (NBC News)

Is Trump on the brink of another run for president?
Former president Donald Trump hasn't made a final decision about running in 2024, but some advisers say he could set a bid in motion as early as this summer.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Link copied June 5, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC By Jonathan Allen

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump is bored at Mar-a-Lago and anxious to get back in the political arena — as a candidate, not a kingmaker — according to his advisers, who are divided over whether he should launch a third bid for the presidency as early as this summer.

While many Trump confidants believe he should wait until after November's midterm elections — and caution that he has not yet made a final decision about running — some say he could move more quickly to harness supporters and deny fuel to the busload of GOP hopefuls in his rearview mirror.

"I've laid out my case on why I think he should do it," said longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller, who traveled with the former president to a rally in Wyoming over Memorial Day weekend. "I think that there being clarity about what his intentions are [is important] so he can start building that operation while it's still fresh in people's minds and they're still active — a lot of that can be converted into 2024 action."

A second adviser, who believes Trump should pause until the more traditional post-midterm period, said the former president, famous for his lack of impulse control, is nonetheless likely to jump in "sooner rather than later."

Both said Trump has gathered a wide range of views.

One question is "whether he can sort of suppress his excitement about a 2024 rematch and not, say, go ahead and put that statement out … and waits for a big event, a big speech to do it," the second adviser said. "A betting person says he's doing it, and he also wants to crowd out the rest of the field."

Two people in Trump's orbit told NBC News they had been asked informally to hold July 4 as a date for a possible announcement, but Miller — noting that Trump hasn't yet decided to run — said it is "not true" that the day has been reserved, even unofficially, for a launch.

Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for Trump, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the divide.

Trump's decision, and its timing, promise to define the playing field for Republicans' efforts to oust President Joe Biden in 2024, and there is reason for him to feel greater urgency in recent weeks.

While he casts a longer shadow over his party than that of any former president in modern times, the footsteps of 2024 Republican hopefuls are growing louder. Several of them have visited early primary states, endorsed candidates in the midterms or delivered high-profile speeches designed to elevate their standing in the party.

That pack includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

There is also an emerging dynamic in which his favorites in multi-candidate races often fail — win or lose — to finish with as much as one-third of the vote. Some Republican operatives see that as a sign that his influence on the GOP electorate has diminished, to say nothing of his standing with a broader public that voted him out of office less than two years ago.

Perhaps more important, Trump is frustrated by the ennui of engaging mostly through midterm endorsements for candidates he hardly knows, especially when — as has happened in several recent high-profile primaries — they lose.

But as much as Trump is tantalized by President Joe Biden's struggles in office — and his own impatience — there are plenty of reasons to hold off, Trump allies and Republican strategists say.

If Trump announces a bid, his campaign committee will be subject to hard-money fundraising limits and a technical ban on coordinating with his Save America PAC. He would also undoubtedly focus public attention away from Republicans running in midterm races, potentially hurting the party's candidates in swing districts and states. And he might inadvertently aid Biden by giving the president a contrast point.

"The clearest, cleanest path is to have a cage-match rematch," the second adviser said. "If you have that rematch too early, it could actually help Biden a little bit. ... Trump in modest doses has been good for Trump."

There is precedent for a once and possibly future president, and for the prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch. In 1892, former President Grover Cleveland defeated President Benjamin Harrison, who had unseated Cleveland in 1888.

That was one of six times in U.S. history that a candidate tried to unseat the incumbent president who beat him four years earlier, not counting the elections George Washington won before parties were organized. The first was in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson avenged his loss at the hands of President John Adams. The most recent: Dwight Eisenhower's consecutive wins over Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956.

In four of the six contests, the challenger won.

In recent months, Trump has teased audiences at his rallies by suggesting that he will, in fact, run in 2024.

"The truth is: I ran twice, I won twice and I did much better the second time," Trump said at a March rally in Georgia, repeating the lie that he was victorious in 2020. "And now we just may have to do it again."

For now, he is soliciting and receiving counsel, both on whether he should run and, if he does, when he should jump in.

"He always seeks advice from the unlikeliest of places and a very wide pool of voices," said Miller, who declined to go into the details of his own discussions with Trump on the matter. "I very much want him to run again in 2024."


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

If Trump decides to run for president , he will be the Republican nominee. He wont need to be overwhelmingly popular, all he will need is to be more popular among the Republican primary voters than any of the other candidates. This is a lock. 

Trump will get at least a third of the vote in every primary state, and none of the others can reach that number. GOP primaries are winner take all. 

Does anyone seriously believe that DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo, Haley, Cotton or Cruz can individually get more Republican base votes than Trump, particularly once Trump starts lying about them, which he will surely do. 

Republicans have set this monster into perpetual motion and have no chance of stopping it. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Don't get your hopes up John. Trump's fragile base is continuing to crumble.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
1.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago

As Joe continues to make people believe he is out of touch with absolutely no plan to address the issues and has nothing other than  blaming  them on others I think the best he can hope for is if Trump wins the nomination.  If he does it will be up to how many independents can hold their nose and vote for him.  As Joe continues to shit the bed (and his pants) more and more will be able to do that. It is good to see his base eroding though, I would rather he did not run.  If Ron is nominated I think there is a greater chance of a Republican president unless Joe actually does something to help the country or the Dems nominate someone else completely (although I am not sure who that would be).

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.1    2 months ago
I think the best he can hope for is if Trump wins the nomination.

A Trump nomination would be a huge boost for the Democratic Party.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.1    2 months ago
Joe actually does something to help the country 

One thing nice about the English language is that fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.1.4  Revillug  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago

Is it safe to read Newsweek again?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

DeSantis has more support than Trump and will be your next president.

Trump will be great as an advisor, just to see leftists be triggered for 8 more years.

Priceless fun!!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @1.2    2 months ago

The chances of Trump becoming DeSantis' "adviser" are slim and none, and slim has left the building. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
If Trump decides to run for president , he will be the Republican nominee.

Have you heard about the straw poll in Colorado?

"DENVER –  Gov. Ron DeSantis once again swept a straw poll for 2024 presidential candidates at a Colorado conservative conference Saturday, beating out former  former President Donald Trump  and other possible contenders.

The attendees of the Western Conservative Summit, organized by the Centennial Institute, a think tank associated with Colorado Christian University, approved of a potential DeSantis candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination at 71%, with Trump coming in at 67%. 

The straw poll was conducted based on an "approval" system, which allowed attendees to vote for more than one candidate that they could support."




And of course, there is a lot of time for some investigator, somewhere, to dig up something on Trump. Either way the left better start smearing DeSantis.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.3.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 months ago
Either way the left better start smearing DeSantis.

DeSantis is doing a fine job of that by himself.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.3.1    2 months ago
"Either way the left better start smearing DeSantis."

"DeSantis is doing a fine job of that by himself."

Exactly.  The moron has been appealing to his rabid base all along with the non-existent CRT nonsense and other non-existent threats.  He appeals to his rabid base and no one else.    

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

285023814_430993022364529_7682695755632950618_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=wqmmm9HTICUAX859bT7&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8I7_Z3ES9AHTGWvBkz1OdwHkiSSHtZz_Klf809_iZcWQ&oe=62A31DD3

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    2 months ago

The GoP has demonstrably lost its collective mind.   Clearly, the GoP continues with Trump as its leader and would almost certainly nominate him if he decides to run.   Thus it is up to the Ds to put forth a solid candidate.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @2    2 months ago
Thus it is up to the Ds to put forth a solid candidate.

And just who would that be?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1    2 months ago

I am waiting to see like everyone else.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    2 months ago

Speculate. I am interested to know 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.2    2 months ago

Why?   I have no special influence.   If I had some notion, which I do not at this point, what difference would it make?  

Biden is a bad choice;  I wanted him to serve one term and give the D and R parties a chance to get their acts together and not deliver a repeat of 2020 and 2016.   Harris would be an abysmal choice.   The Ds need to go outside those two just as the Rs need to go outside of Trump and Trump sycophants.

The progress thus far is not impressive.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.1.4  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    2 months ago
Biden is a bad choice;

Let me correct you. "Biden WAS a bad choice". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @2.1.4    2 months ago

My statement is correct.   We were talking about the choice for 2024.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2    2 months ago
Thus it is up to the Ds to put forth a solid candidate.

The Ds could put up Jesus Christ, they will lose based on their performance.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    2 months ago

When any one needs the truth run far far away from TDS drivel like this article.

Perhaps more important, Trump is frustrated by the ennui of engaging mostly through midterm endorsements for candidates he hardly knows, especially when — as has happened in several recent high-profile primaries — they lose.

When one tells a lie- tell a fucking whopper. Only the TDS driven will nod their heads in agreement over this one.

Former President Donald Trump's endorsement record has held up relatively strong so far in the 2022 midterms. Factoring out Trump picks who ran unopposed, his endorsements receive an average of 63.5% of the vote across federal, state, and local primary contests. While endorsements are an imperfect measure of Trump's influence in the present iteration of the GOP — with many of the candidates in these races running as the Trumpiest version of themselves, even after failing to clinch a Trump endorsement — they also provide a barometer for what an over-performance or under-performance looks like.

Compare that to the human fuck up machine Democrats and the left put into the Oval Office.

President Joe Biden has endorsed just two Democrats so far in the 2022 midterm election cycle and it appears one of those endorsements could be about to backfire in Oregon.

Biden announced his support for incumbent Representative Kurt Schrader in Oregon's recently redrawn 5th congressional district in April but Schrader is facing a tough challenge from progressive Jamie McLeod-Skinner. Voters will go to the polls on Tuesday to decide the primary races in the state's congressional districts as well as voting in the Senate and gubernatorial primaries.

While Schrader has been endorsed by both Biden and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), he is a controversial figure who opposed Nancy Pelosi 's return as Speaker of the House and the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump following the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

No Democrats are seeking Brandon's endorsement; because he is the worst president in the history of the US. (Jimmy Carter would like to truly thank Brandon for removing his name from that award.) The media can play it off as Brandon not wanting to get involved; truth is no one wants him involved. Remember the Virginia races he an Harris campaigned in; the Democrats lost votes when they showed up? It was the last act of desperate Democrats that knew they were going to lose.

Democrats had better start concentrating on the human fuck up machine they put in the Oval Office. "But Trruuummmmpppppp!!!!!!" will not save them during midterms; or in 2024.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 months ago

Do you want Trump to be PotUS again??

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    2 months ago

I know I personally do not want Trump to run again and would not vote for him if he did. It is time for newer younger blood.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.1    2 months ago

Sounds like you voted for Biden just because he's "not Trump".  How stupid is that?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.3  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.2    2 months ago
Sounds like you voted for Biden just because he's "not Trump".  How stupid is that?

Not as stupid as someone who wants to vote for Trump  in 2024.

I would have voted for a glass of cold spit to get the dumpster fire that is Trump out of office. So far, Biden has not performed badly in comparison.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.1.3    2 months ago
Not as stupid as someone who wants to vote for Trump  in 2024.

I don't recall anybody saying they would.  

I would have voted for a glass of cold spit to get the dumpster fire that is Trump out of office.

And like I said, that's pretty stupid.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.5  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.4    2 months ago

Nope. It was incredibly smart thing to do. Trump is no longer president. We have a sane, cogent and knowledgeable president now. 

Trump should have been impeached when he fired Comey and said he did it because he did not want to be investigated. Clear and irrefutable evidence of obstruction of justice. The administration and its leader only got worse after that. He never seemed to realize that he was elected and not king. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.2    2 months ago

Actually, I considered Biden worse than Trump. I voted 3rd party.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Thomas @3.1.3    2 months ago

Actually, Biden has performed very badly. Just in ways different than Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.1.5    2 months ago
Trump is no longer president.

And yet, the left is STILL crying about him relentlessly.  

We have a sane, cogent and knowledgeable president now. 

Who? Let us know when this person arrives.  

Clear and irrefutable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Let me know when that evidence arrives.  So far, none of that  was proven.

The administration and its leader only got worse after that. 

I know.  Low unemployment, inflation under control, securing the southern border, no increased threats from Russia, China or N. Korea.  Gas prices were below $2.  The horror of it all.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.9  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.8    2 months ago

I would rather have someone who respects the constitution than someone who wants to be president for life and obviously has no respect for anyone or anything except himself. 

The president has little if any control over inflation. If you want to blame any group, blame the producers who raised their prices to increase their profit margins and not as a function of increased production cost. They are the ones who are most culpable for any inflation not caused as an extenuation of the pandemic. 

Gas prices? Talk to the producers and the futures traders. They are the ones who set prices. Once again, not the president. 

The southern border should be opened to all immigrants. The inspection of goods crossing the border should remain as it is. 

The threats are in your head, put there by trump to make you dance to his tune.. or, maybe he just started humming to the tune of hate, fear and division that runs through the moneyed classes, and they eventually joined in with the chorus of "Dixie". 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.1.9    2 months ago
I would rather have someone who respects the constitution than someone who wants to be president for life and obviously has no respect for anyone or anything except himself.

And yet you support the Democrats.  

The president has little if any control over inflation.

odd that it didn't start until Biden signed the EO's.  But hey, lets blame Putin.

Gas prices? Talk to the producers and the futures traders.

odd that it didn't start until Biden signed the EO's.  But hey, lets blame Putin.

The southern border should be opened to all immigrants.

You say you would rather have someone who respects the constitution then make that stupid ass statement?  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.2    2 months ago

Sorry you feel that way.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.12  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.10    2 months ago

Go on and continue to prove that you have no clue as to how the world works. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.1.12    2 months ago

You haven't proven me wrong.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.14  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.13    2 months ago

You have not proven yourself correct.

Trump admitted that he fired Comey because he would not call off his investigation of Flynn and "t he Russia thing".

“[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” 

That is obstruction of justice. Case Closed. Others followed, too.

The fact that he was able to stay in office is testament to a flawed group of politicians in Washington. Trump said that he was going to drain the swamp, but really all he wanted to do is put more nasty creatures in it, the nastiest of which was himself.

I have more than one friend who was born on September 11th. Saying that Biden caused inflation or the price of gas to go up is like saying that the horrible tragedy of 9/11 happened because it was their birthday. Just because two things happen to coincide does not mean that one caused the other. 

As for R's and D's, I do not support either. I just tend to, at the current time dislike D's less than I dislike R's.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @3.1.12    2 months ago

He proves it every day

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 months ago
When one tells a lie- tell a fucking whopper. Only the TDS driven will nod their heads in agreement over this one.

Only the true TDS victims would credit the former POTUS with some sort of political 

prowess for backing incumbents like Rand Paul in the primaries.../s

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    2 months ago
That pack includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

None of these sound like good options.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
4.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @4    2 months ago

Compared to joe they run from good to acceptable to still better than joe

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Ender  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1    2 months ago

Cruz better than Joe? Josh Hawley? Tom Cotton? Nutjobs.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
4.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @4.1.1    2 months ago

Other than Cruz as a long shot I don't think the others would have a prayer.  Still don't think they would do as much damage as Joe. So yea, better than joe. Lesser of two evil 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Ender  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.2    2 months ago

I am not a fan of Joe yet what makes me look like I am defending him is the complete kneejerk reactions I hear from most conservatives.

Contrary to how some believe, he does not control inflation or the price of oil.

DeSantis is nothing more than another trump.

Haley is too wishy washy and I don't think would even make it out of the primaries.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @4.1.3    2 months ago

I agree except with the part about DeSantis;  Trump is in a class of his own.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    2 months ago

The scary part is, DeSantis is smarter than trump.

I saw a prediction a while back. Someone said a person would come along with the 'Charisma' of trump yet with the brains of a genius. Could be our downfall. Sort of like a rise of an evil dictator.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    2 months ago

I find Trump to be extraordinarily strange;  he is not your ordinary narcissist — his level of lying and narcissism are beyond anything I have observed in my life.   I think it would be a welcome relief to just get back to the typical lying sack of shit narcissist politician.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    2 months ago

DeSantis doesnt appeal to any sort of sophisticated thinking, his appeal is to Trumpsters who may think the old guy is slipping. There wont be enough of them to win it for DeSantis. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    2 months ago

DeSantis has positioned himself as the reactionaries' leading culture warrior.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @4    2 months ago

I might be able to get behind Haley but I need to hear her on the issues. Tom Cotton is definitely a NO just because he sucks donkey dicks (meaning he's a horse's ass and too damn selfish to be anybody's leader)

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2    2 months ago

In a strange way, I was hoping the republicans would put up someone good.

I think there is still too much trumpism in the party right now.

Isn't Cotton your guy?   Haha

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    2 months ago

Unfortunately he is

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2    2 months ago
able to get behind Haley 

OMG! We actually agree on something. Well there is a first ye for everything

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5  Dig    2 months ago
Is Trump On The Brink Of Another Run For President?

The traitor should be in jail by then.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1  bugsy  replied to  Dig @5    2 months ago
The traitor should be in jail by then.

For what?

What charges have been filed and by whom?

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Dig  replied to  bugsy @5.1    2 months ago

What is wrong with you?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Dig @5.1.1    2 months ago

I might ask you the same question. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.1.3  Dig  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.2    2 months ago

Do you care at all about the republic? Trump tried to overthrow it. He deserves an orange jumpsuit for that, not a chance at another term in office as if nothing ever happened.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Dig @5.1.3    2 months ago

The main thing many reactionaries care about is confirmed in Comment 1.2 above:

to see the leftists triggered

For many a reactionary mind there is no deeper craving than a perverse desire to sate their hatred and rage.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dig @5.1.1    2 months ago
What is wrong with you?

How much time do you have? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  Dig @5.1.3    2 months ago
Trump tried to overthrow it

So did Clinton. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.6    2 months ago
So did Clinton

Complete and total nonsense.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Dig @5.1.3    2 months ago

You never answered bugsy's question in 5.1. While your at it please provide proof from a reliable source. Include the dates of his trial and the conviction date. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.9  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.7    2 months ago

As guilty as you claim Trump is

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.10  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.9    2 months ago

Your comment is not even remotely close to reality.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.6    2 months ago
So did Clinton. 

What on Earth are you talking about?   No candidate for PotUS in our nation's history has come even close to the actions taken by Trump while a sitting PotUS after losing the election.   He is in a league of his own.   How can you not see this?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.9    2 months ago

Why do people like you attempt (in futility) to defend Trump?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.11    2 months ago

The Clinton campaign  tried to go against both federal and state election laws by attempting to bribe electoral college electors to be faithless and to vote for her instead of Trump. There were riots in several cities across the country demanding that the legal results of the election be overturned in her favor. She never condemned those riots. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.14  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.12    2 months ago

I am not trying to defend him. I am just don't like anyone to be call a criminal and especially a traitor without solid evidence of the crime and a conviction for it. Trump has never been tried in a criminal action nor has he been convicted of anything criminal. If you have info that is different please show it. Just because you on the left say it does not make it so

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.14    2 months ago

Where have I deemed Trump a traitor?    Get a clue.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.13    2 months ago

Even if your allegations were true, they do not compare to what Trump did after losing the election.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.17  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.13    2 months ago

No, the Clinton campaign did not try "to go against state and federal laws by attempting to bribe electoral college electors".

No, there were not "riots in several cities across the country demanding that the legal results of the election be overturned".

Just because reactionaries say it does not make it so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.10    2 months ago
"Your comment is not even remotely close to reality."

Take a look at 5.1.13

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.19  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.17    2 months ago

Just because you have a poor memory and do not remember things does not mean they didn't really happen. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.20  bugsy  replied to  Dig @5.1.3    2 months ago
Trump tried to overthrow it.

Where is your proof, why haven't you given it to the FBI?

If you did, why hasn't the FBI filed charges against Trump?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.21  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.15    2 months ago

It was an editorial you not necessarily a you personally. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @5.1.20    2 months ago
If you did, why hasn't the FBI filed charges against Trump?

Uhm uhm uhm uhmmmm..........................................................

But Trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.23  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.22    2 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @5.1.23    2 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.24    2 months ago

I didn't even mention TDS.

Weird.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.21    2 months ago

You replied to me arkpdx.   When someone replies directly to me I (like most everyone) assume their comment applies to what I have written.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.27  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.19    2 months ago

Your fantasies didn't happen no matter how much you pretend they did.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.1.28  Dig  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.13    2 months ago
The Clinton campaign  tried to go against both federal and state election laws by attempting to bribe electoral college electors to be faithless and to vote for her instead of Trump.

Something like that would be well-documented, so go ahead and show us some of the reporting on it. Post some links.

I won't hold my breath because I know it's a goddamn lie, and not the first time you've told it.  Why do you keep telling lies?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.29  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.26    2 months ago

Well that's the English language for you

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.1.30  Dig  replied to  bugsy @5.1.20    2 months ago
Where is your proof, why haven't you given it to the FBI?

My god. How can you possibly be under the impression that Trump didn't try to overturn the presidential election and usurp power? I mean, seriously... HOW?

Here's something I had bookmarked and handy, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted time on this stupidity. It's the Senate Judiciary report from last October. It mostly focuses on Trumps efforts with the DOJ and doesn't cover the full extent of his treachery, but it's a good start:

Full Report

If the almost 400 page report is too much, then here's the summarized chronology of key events from it:

Appendix A

Be sure to watch the public hearings starting on Thursday for what should be a broader, more up to date accounting of his attempted autocoup.

But somehow I suspect that even that won't be enough for certain people. Alternate-reality cult thinking is hard to break through.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @5.1.30    2 months ago
Alternate-reality cult thinking is hard to break through.

AKA stubborn ignorance.   Basically forming a belief based on group-think and historical bias and engaging confirmation bias to ensure the belief survives all facts and logic to the contrary.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.1.32  Dig  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.31    2 months ago

And with an entire universe of propagandistic media reinforcing it on a daily basis, making billions in the process. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @5.1.32    2 months ago

Thus no surprise why so many in Russia think Putin is acting honorably to destroy a Nazi threat.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.34  pat wilson  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.29    2 months ago

That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of TiG's post. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.35  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.13    2 months ago

Links? Oh, and remember your 'reliable source' thingy please. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.36  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @5.1.35    2 months ago

I will start providing links when I start seeing the ones I asked the lefties for. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.37  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.36    2 months ago

So you're a 'Do as I say, not as I do' kinda guy. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.38  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.4    2 months ago
to see the leftists triggered

That's what it's all about. The country could blow itself up but the righties got to trigger leftists.

Childish and petty

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dig @5    2 months ago
The traitor should be in jail by then.

Yeah, we've been hearing that for years now and nobody has provided any evidence of why.  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
5.2.1  Dig  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2    2 months ago

Nobody has provided any evidence? Are you kidding? Have you been under a rock for the past year and a half? Even Trump himself spoke recently at a rally about how Pence should have "overturned the election" for him.

Weren't you an Army lifer? Didn't you take several reenlistment oaths to support and defend the Constitution? Well, Trump tried to subvert the Constitution and illegally usurp power – as a sitting president, no less (who also took an oath). 

I know it. You know it. Trump knows it. The whole friggin' world knows it.

But if you need a refresher, tune in Thursday night for the start of the public hearings.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    2 months ago

Truth. 

Excellent comments on here by you, Dig.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    2 months ago

I guess you don't quite grasp the need for evidence to back up an accusation, have a trial and get a conviction.  The left has been rallying against Trump for over 4 years.  There has been no evidence presented to back up ANY of the accusations.  Hence, no trials, no convictions.  

Now quit with the tiresome "He did it" bullshit and present some actual evidence.  I'm sure the partisan shit show Pelosi is running would love to see some actual evidence.

But if you need a refresher, tune in Thursday night for the start of the public hearings.

So that's the new time for The View?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    2 months ago
Well, Trump tried to subvert the Constitution and illegally usurp power

How did he do that? HE did nothing of the sort. That you and others have that wet dream (and so did he according to you) doesn't make it so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.3    2 months ago

No evidence will suffice to those with blinders on.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.4    2 months ago

All your denials (projection, deflection, and denial) doesn't make it NOT SO.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.6    2 months ago

Profound nonsense.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

There are a half dozen or so right wingers here who do NOTHING but make the most vague declarations possible on behalf of Trump and the rest of MAGA. They "debate" without even the slightest use of facts, links or quotes, or even decent rhetoric, yet demand to be taken seriously and not as trolls. 

Meanwhile very few people call them out to any substantial degree. What are we doing here? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.8    2 months ago

[Deleted - falsified quotation]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.8    2 months ago
What are we doing here? 

Mainly whining.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.7    2 months ago

Yes, that's all you and your buddies have.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.3    2 months ago
There has been no evidence presented to back up ANY of the accusations. Hence, no trials, no convictions.

There have been 2 impeachments AND 2 trials. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.2.13  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @5.2.12    2 months ago

And ZERO convictions. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @5.2.12    2 months ago
There have been 2 impeachments AND 2 trials. 

Based on ZERO evidence (don't know why that is so hard for your to understand) and ZERO convictions.  You seem to forget the "impeachments" were partisan bullshit.   Democrats were (and are still) pissed they lost to the FNG and tried (and FAILED) to unseat a duly elected President.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @5.2.13    2 months ago

Like the song says '2 out of 3 ain't bad'.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.14    2 months ago
Based on ZERO evidence (don't know why that is so hard for your to understand) and ZERO convictions. 

None of it's hard for me to understand Jeremy. I fully understand the fact that your comment proves that you're in denial. 

You seem to forget the "impeachments" were partisan bullshit. 

That's YOUR opinion. 

 Democrats were (and are still) pissed they lost to the FNG and tried (and FAILED) to unseat a duly elected President. 

Ya they made up that whole 'soliciting election interference by a foreign government' and 'inciting an insurrection' thingys. /s

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.2.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @5.2.16    2 months ago
None of it's hard for me to understand Jeremy.

Apparently it is.  

Ya they made up that whole 'soliciting election interference by a foreign government' and 'inciting an insurrection' thingys.

Now you're coming to reality.  We can't forget the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory, and the "Pee Tapes" and a few other things.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.17    2 months ago
Apparently it is.  

Again, you opinion. 

Now you're coming to reality.

No, I'm laughing at the ridiculousness of your comments. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago
"The truth is: I ran twice, I won twice and I did much better the second time," Trump said at a March rally in Georgia, repeating the lie that he was victorious in 2020. "And now we just may have to do it again."

When I read that it was my SECOND laugh out loud of the morning - it was too late to be my first.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    2 months ago

Trump believes that repeating a lie often enough and with conviction gains the same effect as if the lie were the truth.   Unfortunately, he is not entirely wrong there.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
6.1.1  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago

And yet you and others on the left repeat the lie that Trump committed treason. Just because you say it does notMake it fact

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.1    2 months ago

You clearly do not have clue one of my position.   Don't presume.   I have never stated that Trump committed treason.   What I have stated, clearly, is that Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:

  • He lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • He tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • He tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • He tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • He encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).

Buy a vowel.   Operate based on facts rather than a flawed stereotype-based speculation.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago

The problem for America is not that Trump is such an incorrigible liar, the problem is that there are so many Americans who believe him. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 months ago
"Trump believes that repeating a lie often enough and with conviction gains the same effect as if the lie were the truth."

I guess he figures that it worked for Hitler and Goebbels, so it should work for him - and as you said, it DOES.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 months ago

Sometimes I think Americans are very stupid. Trump has repeatedly showed everyone what he is, and we still see massive denial from the right. 

In July of 2016 Trump asked Russia to help him by finding Hillary Clinton's missing emails.  Nooooooooooooo, said the right, he would never do that. It was a "joke". Three years later he asked the same of the president of Ukraine and was impeached for it. Quite the joke. Then earlier this year Trump did it again, asking Vladimir Putin to release supposed dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden, and this time during a time period that Russia was attacking Ukraine. This is a pattern of behavior that shows he was guilty of this back in 2016. No joke. 

Much the same with the "voter fraud" allegations. Back in 2016 Trump said the only way he could lose was if the Democrats cheated. Sounds familiar doesnt it? Very few paid attention , which allowed him to go through the same charade after he DID lose in 2020. His saying the same thing 6 years ago that he claimed in 2020 IS evidence of his lying. A pattern. He wil do the same thing in 2024 if permitted. 

Americans are stupid. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.1    2 months ago

Trump is a traitor. He betrayed the principles of his high office and that makes him a traitor. We have been over this already. 

Its sad that your only defense of Trump is that he's never been convicted. Al Capone murdered people that he never was convicted for. Lack of criminal conviction is not proof of innocence. 

Why we have to go over and over and over this same shit with you people is a long lasting mystery. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    2 months ago

"Americans are stupid."

Those who voted for trumpturd sure as hell are.  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Guide
6.1.8  Dig  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 months ago
I have never stated that Trump committed treason.   What I have stated, clearly, is that Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution

The attempted usurpation of power in a constitutional republic is a treasonous act, an attempted overthrow of constitutional governance.

Just sayin'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @6.1.8    2 months ago

I was deliberately sticking with what he wrote to force the point of presumption on his part.

I have no patience for the stereotype-based presumption that occurs so often.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8  arkpdx    2 months ago

People believed Biden and look where we are now. Things wére much better during Trump. During the Trump term inflation was not over 8% and gas was reasonably priced.  

No Joe, no matter how much you say it, Inflation and gas prices are Putin's doing. The blame is all yours 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @8    2 months ago

LOL.  And when Obama was POTUS there was no hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid-19 and no BLM protests and no storming the Capitol Building.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1    2 months ago
no BLM protests 

How cute.  You called the BLM riots protests.  When are Burning buildings, Looting and Murder part of a "protest".  

It should also be noted that the left showed their support of the Burn, Loot, Murder Riots.  And now look at what is being "investigated".  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    2 months ago

Your comment deliberately misses the point of mine, but as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly....I don't give a damn".

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1    2 months ago
And when Obama was POTUS there was no hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid-19

Exactly, Obama not only protected Americans, he protected the world from COVID-19, then Trump took his eyes off China...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.3    2 months ago

Yes, beware the YELLOW PERIL!!!!!  There are getting to be so few places to deflect to....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.4    2 months ago
There are getting to be so few places to deflect to....

You linked Obama and COVID-19, I didn't.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.2    2 months ago

When you willing play down a riot, your credibility goes with it.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.7  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    2 months ago

Pure and unadulterated distortion of BLM protests. Thousands of protests were carried out with no "Burning buildings, Looting (or) Murder". 

But what the hell, just throw them all in a bucket cause you need something to bitch about. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.8  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.6    2 months ago
Burning buildings, Looting and Murder

When you cannot see that millions of people were enjoined in peaceful protest, the world is a poorer place. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.7    2 months ago
Pure and unadulterated distortion of BLM protests. Thousands of protests were carried out with no "Burning buildings, Looting (or) Murder".  But what the hell, just throw them all in a bucket cause you need something to bitch about. 

93% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Nothing else in American society devolves into mass violence so often. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @8.1.8    2 months ago
When you cannot see that millions of people were enjoined in peaceful protest,

Is that what you call what happened in Minneapolis, Kenosa and every other place BLM showed up?  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.11  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.9    2 months ago
Nothing else in American society devolves into mass violence so often. 

So what is your point? 93% of the protests had no violence at all. The rest had some violence occur at sometime during the day of and related somehow to the protest. 

The question to ask is,"Why?"  The answers to that question vary, but IMO most will hinge on the fact that 152 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, a police officer in the USA knelt on a black man's neck until he was dead without it ever occurring to the officer that he would face any repercussions for his actions. The reason for his thinking? He thought that his brotherhood would protect him. That is textbook systemic, because he thought the system would protect him. This is what all of the protestors were about.

Protests occur because of a perceived systemic failure. I would contend that all riots are a result of a severe systemic failure. In the case of 2020, this systemic failure was given breath by the person who had his breath, and his life, taken for the sake of a counterfeit twenty. 

So to all the people who want to claim that all protestors (and their causes) are bad because some of them do bad things I have two things to say to them. 

  1. Your logic is faulty.
  2. Fuck Off
 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.12  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.10    2 months ago

Case in point.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.11    2 months ago
So what is your point?

That BLM protests are among the most commonly violent things in American society.  They are certainly one of the most violent things we actually tolerate.

93% of the protests had no violence at all.

93% is a phenomenally low number, compared to any organized, non-criminal gathering of Americans.  Literally nothing else breaks into violence one out of every 14 times it happens.

Imagine if NFL games resulted in riots with the same frequency?  That would be one every week in some major city in America.  The league would be disbanded.   

The question to ask is,"Why?"  The answers to that question vary,

The answer to the question "why" is always speculative and driven heavily by the pre-established bias of the person answering the question, as you demonstrate here:

   but IMO most will hinge on the fact that 152 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, a police officer in the USA knelt on a black man's neck until he was dead without it ever occurring to the officer that he would face any repercussions for his actions. The reason for his thinking? He thought that his brotherhood would protect him. That is textbook systemic, because he thought the system would protect him. This is what all of the protestors were about.

You make several assertions here, and to your credit, you identify them as your opinion.  But in terms of what we can actually state to be factual....

  • You can't possibly know what "all of the protestors were about".  There were tens of thousands of them.
  • It would be ridiculous to presume that somebody walking down the street holding a candle has the same motivation as the person looting the Target or setting small businesses on fire.
  • You have no idea what Chauvin was thinking.
Protests occur because of a perceived systemic failure.

That doesn't mean they aren't frequently violent.

I would contend that all riots are a result of a severe systemic failure. In the case of 2020, this systemic failure was given breath by the person who had his breath, and his life, taken for the sake of a counterfeit twenty. 

I hope we're not pretending riots are also not violent.  I'm also not sure that most Americans feel that "systemic failure" of one form or another is justification for burning, looting, or otherwise destroying small businesses.

The math is damning.  The average BLM protest during 2020 (including all the ones where no violence was reported) resulted in $750,000 worth of damage.  The overwhelmingly vast majority of this was not targeted at police stations or courthouses or other "hard" targets.  It was inflicted on average Americans who have never committed an act of violence against anyone, minority or otherwise.  

So to all the people who want to claim that all protestors (and their causes) are bad because some of them do bad things I have two things to say to them. 
  1. Your logic is faulty.
  2. Fuck Off

I'm very sure the victims of all of these "mostly peaceful" protests would say the same things to you.  They have more right to say it, BTW. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.13    2 months ago
You can't possibly know what "all of the protestors were about".  There were tens of thousands of them.

Actually, there were tens of MILLIONS of them. 

The math is damning.  The average BLM protest during 2020 (including all the ones where no violence was reported) resulted in $750,000 worth of damage. 

The highest estimate I can find for ALL of the BLM protests resulted in about $2 BILLION in damage.

The 93% data you repeated is based on 7750 BLM protests in the US. 

The CORRECT math is then about $258,000 in damage per protest.

That juxtaposed with the estimated $1.5 MILLION worth of property damage on Jan. 6th. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.14    2 months ago
Actually, there were tens of MILLIONS of them.

Unlikely.  What's your source?

In any case, it emphasizes my point that he can't possibly know "what they were about".

The 93% data you repeated is based on 7750 BLM protests in the US.  The CORRECT math is then about $258,000 in damage per protest.

The data as originally released referred to locations, which numbered between 2000 and 2500.  Accepting your modification, it's still an outrageous and indefensible number.  At no point can anything that averages a quarter million dollars of damage every time it happens be considered "peaceful".   The very idea is ridiculous.  

That juxtaposed with the estimated $1.5 MILLION worth of property damage on Jan. 6th. 

I've not heard anyone attempt to defend the DC riots as "peaceful protests".  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.15    2 months ago
What's your source?

Fact-checking claim about deaths, damage from Black Lives Matter protests (statesman.com)

In any case, it emphasizes my point that he can't possibly know "what they were about".

Actually, all it emphasizes it that your claim was wrong. 

The data as originally released referred to locations, which numbered between 2000 and 2500.  Accepting your modification, it's still an outrageous and indefensible number.  At no point can anything that averages a quarter million dollars of damage every time it happens be considered "peaceful".   The very idea is ridiculous.  

The 'data as originally released' that resulted in the 93% is about number of protests , NOT number of locations. I haven't modified anything, you have...tried.

BTFW, why are you so desperate to ignore the FACT that less than 17% of the protests that occurred during a very short period caused that damage? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.16    2 months ago

Meh.....  One liberal source claiming but not actually citing another (historically unreliable) liberal source has polling data with a 70% variance is suspicious at best.  Any actual information on these supposed NYT polls and their methodology?  

Actually, all it emphasizes it that your claim was wrong. 

Not if you were remotely paying attention to his point or mine.  If there is no way he can know the minds of tens of thousands of people (which he can't), there is sure as fuck no way he can know the minds of tens of millions.  

BTFW, why are you so desperate to ignore the FACT that less than 17% of the protests that occurred during a very short period caused that damage?

I think if you'll review, you'll find that we're talking about 7%, not 17%.  You'll also find I've not made the assertion you're claiming I have.  Re-read, recalculate, pay attention, and let's see if you can do better.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.17    2 months ago
Meh..... 

You asked for a source, I gave you one. 

Can you refute the content Jack?

Did you notice that there are multiple links in that article to the data it contains? 

Here's one from July, 2020:

The recent Black Lives Matter protests peaked on June 6, when half a million people turned out in nearly 550 places across the United States. That was a single day in more than a month of protests that still continue to today.

Four recent polls — including one released this week by   Civis Analytics , a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns — suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks.

These figures would make the recent protests the largest movement in the country’s history, according to interviews with scholars and crowd-counting experts.

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Not if you were remotely paying attention to his point or mine.

I address YOUR claim and it's WRONG. 

I think if you'll review, you'll find that we're talking about 7%, not 17%. 

Yes, 7%. 

You'll also find I've not made the assertion you're claiming I have.  

You'll find that I didn't claim that you made an assertion Jack. 

Re-read, recalculate, pay attention, and let's see if you can do better.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.18    2 months ago
You asked for a source, I gave you one. 

And I asked for clarification.  As one does in civilized conversation.

You'll find that I didn't claim that you made an assertion Jack. 

If I haven't made an assertion, how could it be wrong?  Your logic isn't any better than your math.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.19    2 months ago
And I asked for clarification. 

Bullshit. You posted:

What's your source?

Why post a lie? I gave you what you asked for. Just stop. 

As one does in civilized conversation.

If posting a lie about what you asked is what you consider to be a 'civilized conversation', I'll take a pass. 

If I haven't made an assertion, how could it be wrong? 

Oh my bad Jack, based on your following comments, I thought that you agreed that your 'tens of thousands' statement was uninformed.

Your logic isn't any better than your math.

Yours is no better than the veracity of your comments. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.20    2 months ago

*sigh*

You are soooooo determined to pick a ridiculous, nonsensical fight you can't keep track of what was actually said.

Read it again.

You posted a statistic.  I asked for your source.  You cited a source.  I asked for clarification about your source.  In what universe does any of that constitute a lie?  That's just utter fucking batshit.  

Oh my bad Jack, based on your following comments, I thought that you agreed that your 'tens of thousands' statement was uninformed.

If you'll review the conversation... you will find....   

My "tens of thousands" reference was used to demonstrate the foolishness of one person (in this case Thomas) who's never met most of those people being able to state authoritatively what they were all thinking.    Were there more than "tens of thousands"?  Very probably.  And every person we add makes the likelihood that one person can accurately describe all of them more unlikely.  If there were really tens of millions, his claims are literally 1000x more stupid.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.21    2 months ago
*sigh* You are soooooo determined to pick a ridiculous, nonsensical fight you can't keep track of what was actually said.

You are soooo determined to pretend that you're always correct that you refuse to acknowledge facts. 

Read it again.

No need. 

You posted a statistic.  I asked for your source.  You cited a source. 

I posted a correction of the statistic that you got wrong. 

I asked for clarification about your source. 

No, you dissed my source. Then you asked for information on a completely different source. 

In what universe does any of that constitute a lie? 

I think that it's obvious Jack. You did NOT ask for clarification about my source. 

I pointed out that there were links to the data in the link I provided. Have you availed yourself of the information Jack and if so, what say you about it? 

That's just utter fucking batshit.  

You seem to be expert in bullshit. 

If you'll review the conversation... you will find....   

Our conversation started @ https://thenewstalkers.com/john-russell/group_discuss/15860/is-trump-on-the-brink-of-another-run-for-president#cm1805178,">

Thomas hasn't been part of it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.1.22    2 months ago

It's hilarious how you can be so wrong in so many different and creative ways, all because you get your knickers in a twist and won't read carefully.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.24  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.13    2 months ago

Depending on the time and place of the protest, millions of people went to the BLM protests that had no violent actions occur. So, in effect you are saying that all of these people really should just have stayed home. 

These millions of people enjoined in peaceful protest is the basic fact you willingly ignore because it does not fit your narrative. You say that people should stay home and not attend because "it might get violent" rather than leaving at a daylight hour or when told to disperse. 

Your willing blind spot is noted.

There is a difference between a protest and a riot. You willingly conflate the two in defense of your narrative. I think you need to think about that fact and what it says about you as a person.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.24    2 months ago
Depending on the time and place of the protest, millions of people went to the BLM protests that had no violent actions occur. So, in effect you are saying that all of these people really should just have stayed home. 

Do cite me saying so.  And when you cannot, kindly agree to stop misrepresenting my views.

I have made no comment on whether people should have participated or not.

I'm saying....again...  that statistically BLM protests were one of the most violent things in American culture.   I am saying ....again... that any other type of gathering that turned violent with such a high frequency would be condemned and outlawed.  Further, the organizers of any such events would be held liable for their negligence.... which is what you call it when you know something is very likely to go very wrong and you do it anyway.

Given that, I think the obvious conclusions are a) people should not have committed those acts of violence.. and b) people should stop trying to pretend this was not a violent movement.

You desperately cling to a hyper-idealized view of these events, so I suspect you will continue to pretend.  But the statistics make that naivete all the more foolish.

These millions of people enjoined in peaceful protest is the basic fact you willingly ignore because it does not fit your narrative. You say that people should stay home and not attend because "it might get violent" rather than leaving at a daylight hour or when told to disperse. 

Do cite me saying that.  Again, I would ask you to stop misrepresenting my views.   

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.26  arkpdx  replied to  Thomas @8.1.24    2 months ago

Are you trying to say that there were no riots or violence during the BLM protests or are you trying to say that just because 5here were some that weren't violent that okays and negates those that were?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.13    2 months ago
93% is a phenomenally low number

It's probably the dumbest defense of anything I've seen.   Protests to "Stop the Steal"  were proportionally less violent.  No one justifies January 6th by pointing to all the election protests that didn't turn violent. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.28  Thomas  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.26    2 months ago

Riot = Bad, not protected speech

Protest = protected speech

What I am saying is that there were thousands of protests and of those 93% of them saw no violence. The other 7% saw violence (meaning some physical manifestation of violent activity by one or more people that required the use of police to control) at some point during the period of time that the protest was going on. Looking at these protests we can see that,as a general rule, the violent actions did not start until the evening. Several reports note that it was like a changing of the guard when night fell, with the peaceful protestors leaving and the younger, more brash and confrontational people showing up. These were the people who were ready to riot. 

So, in answer to your false dichotomy presenting question: Neither.

It is disgraceful that as a nation we have people who feel so dissociated from the "American Dream" that they would feel it necessary to riot. A riot is an indication of a societal failure. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.29  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.28    2 months ago

I would be curious to know what you believe these events achieved.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.30  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.25    2 months ago
Do cite me saying that.

7.1.10

From the article Supreme Murder Plot And The Reckless Rhetoric

They didn't need to demonize anybody.  The demonstrators did that for themselves.  Either they were:
  • active participants in rioting and looting, or
  • they attended events that they were fully aware had a high probability of devolving into rioting and looting, or
  • they were oblivious to all the rioting and looting ...meaning they were complete morons.

After reading this, it should be obvious to most people that you were not only against the riots but the protests as well and because,"... they were fully aware had a high probability of devolving into rioting and looting ." The inference to draw from this statement and the rest of your commentary is that you think the protestors should have stayed home instead of going to the BLM protest. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.31  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.30    2 months ago
After reading this, it should be obvious to most people that you were not only against the riots but the protests as well and because,"... they were fully aware had a high probability of devolving into rioting and looting ." The inference to draw from this statement and the rest of your commentary is that you think the protestors should have stayed home instead of going to the BLM protest. 

If you go to a protest and it's peaceful, fine.  If you go and it turns violent, you should leave.  If huge numbers of those protests start turning violent, yes, you should stop going.

How is that not obvious?  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.25    2 months ago
I'm saying....again...  that statistically BLM protests were one of the most violent things in American culture.

Then you're wrong Jack. Historically, there are far more violent times in American 'culture'. I'm old enough to remember civil unrest in the 60's and 70's. I'm also well read enough to recognize that some hard core violence  went down in this country since it's inception. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.33  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.31    2 months ago
If you go to a protest and it's peaceful, fine. 

I agree.

If you go and it turns violent, you should leave.

I also agree.

If huge numbers of those protests start turning violent, yes, you should stop going.

This definition of "huge numbers" and what is considered "violent" is where you slip into ambiguity. 

Twenty-eight percent of blacks say they have been arrested after encounters with law enforcement, 24 percent say they've been personally harassed by police, and 53 percent say they know someone who has.

The numbers are much lower for whites and Asian-Americans, while Hispanics fall in between.

Breaking it down, 22 percent of Hispanics, 15 percent of whites and 10 percent of Asians-Americans say they have been arrested after encounters with police. Sixteen percent of Hispanics, 8 percent of whites and 4 percent of Asian-Americans say they've experienced harassment, while about a third of Hispanics and about a quarter of Asian-Americans and whites say someone they know has been harassed by police.

Why did I reference that finding? Because it, and numerous other similar findings across numerous other surveys and analyses, point to the fact that minorities in the US are bothered and harassed at a much higher rate than whites. 

But wait, there's more.  According to a Harvard Radcliff study:

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.

Further:

Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.

Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.

The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Only 3.7% of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. Some portion of these involved neither police nor protesters, but people engaging in vandalism or looting alongside the protests.

In short, our data suggest that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7% of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

97.7% had no injuries.... I suppose that 2.3% is still rather large, and 3.7% caused property damage, well oh, the humanity, it is not at all the cities on flame that some here claim.  Juxtaposed with the other studies showing defacto racial bias in law enforcement, I think that it could have been much worse. 

What have the BLM protests achieved?  They have raised awareness of systemic racism in the USA.  Slowly, with spits, starts, and backsliding,  we are working towards equality.  IMO, we've a long way to go.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.34  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.33    2 months ago
This definition of "huge numbers" and what is considered "violent" is where you slip into ambiguity. 

It's not ambiguous.  

Why did I reference that finding?

Because you're trying to justify the violence of the group you like?

Because it, and numerous other similar findings across numerous other surveys and analyses, point to the fact that minorities in the US are bothered and harassed at a much higher rate than whites. 

How...precisely....does burning down small businesses alleviate that problem?

I suppose that 2.3% is still rather large

Now we're getting somewhere.  Let's keep in mind that the 2.3% is the assertion of a group of highly biased researchers and the article conveniently omits any actual data.  But even if we take them at her word, it's a very high number.

and 3.7% caused property damage, well oh, the humanity

Easy to say when it's not your property.  But $2 billion is a lot of it.

I think that it could have been much worse. 

That's a massive rationalization.  The January 6 riots could have been much worse, too.  We're not going to excuse those, either.

What have the BLM protests achieved?  They have raised awareness of systemic racism in the USA.

Oh dear God.  Just stop.  Don't say "raising awareness".  "Raising awareness" is what tedious idiots claim after they realize their collective tantrum didn't accomplish anything.  The implication here is that people didn't already know, which is the stupidest idea ever.  Michael Brown?  Freddie Gray?  Rodney King?  Arthur McDuffie?  How far back do we want to go?

People knew.  People have literally known for centuries. 

Slowly, with spits, starts, and backsliding,  we are working towards equality.  IMO, we've a long way to go.  

Are we working on it?  We seem to kinda have a proven cycle of not working on it.  Some black guy gets killed by police => it goes on the news => people get outraged => they protest, riot or do any of the other laughable things that make no difference (like changing a FB profile photo or painting some slogan on a street) => they lose interest and go back to their lives => nothing gets done => return to step 1.  

What are we actually doing that tangibly makes life safer for minorities?  How are we going to measure that?  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.35  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.34    2 months ago

Certainly not by sitting on our collective asses and waiting for something to change, something or someone to "do something"

People like you, who justify inaction and write voluminous posts railing against the violence when they could be out showing solidarity with folks who, by your own admission,  are discriminated against, overtly, covertly and systemically.

If the killing, the nonchalant murder of a black man while people are standing there telling him to get off, the man himself pleading with his last breaths to get off, isn't enough to stir you to actively say that something needs to be done, to feel like getting up and screaming at the officer to get off his neck,...... I don't know I just don't know

You say people know, but they don't.  They sit around and watch TV or you tube, and just like you said, they revert to their comfortable ways and Forget about George Floyd, Amadou Diallo because those uppity protestors finally went home. That is unless the protestors don't protest. Then we don't even get to learn their names. Protestors are the only reason we learn their names in the first place. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  Thomas @8.1.35    2 months ago
Certainly not by sitting on our collective asses and waiting for something to change, something or someone to "do something"

Explain how "waiting for something to change, something or someone to do something" while walking around shouting is better.

People like you,

You clearly don't know any people like me.

You're missing the point entirely.  I'm not justifying inaction.  I'm identifying it.  Yours.  Protesting is not "action".  I know you want to think it is, but it's not.  Walking around shouting does not actually reduce systemic discrimination.  Nobody but you cares about your "show of solidarity", especially when their city is on fire.

Something needs to be done.  And it needs to be something more effective than a tantrum.  And make no mistake, it's not a protest, it's a tantrum.  

An actual protest has a measurable, defined, desired outcome.  It targets people with the power to produce that outcome, but who have refused to do so.  

Who is your mayor?  Who is your congressman? Your Governor?  Do they know what your desired outcome is?  Do you want better police training? What? What is it you actually want to see done that will actually make the streets safer for black men?   If you don't have any good ideas, have you demanded that your elected officials come up with one?

Did you get a hundred or so of your protester friends together and demand a town hall meeting with your congressman?  Or your mayor?  Or even the chief of police?   Have you even asked them to enact whatever it is you want done? How will you measure their progress?  Do they know what targets you expect them to meet?  

Have you bothered to work through any of that?  Or do you just wander around screaming like until somebody guesses what you want? You realize that's what toddlers do.

You say people know, but they don't.

They just do.  They're not morons.   

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.37  Thomas  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.36    2 months ago

I could turn most of your questions around and ask the same of you.  

If, knowing what a protest "is" , why did you choose to, instead of joining with them, clarifying their message, pointing out to them the things that you pointed out for me to do, just sit by and watch?

I mean,  if you're so smart and all, why did you not help them? Why castigate me if you believed in the ultimate message of don't kill us?? That is why they were protesting. Why did you not get your friends together and and take the actions? Were you afraid? Were you not in agreement with the stated message? 

It is not through sitting at your device and condemning the protests because "they were doing it wrong " that change occurs.  It is when we all change ourselves that change happens. The only way to make people see the need of change is unfortunately to keep the item of concern in front of the people whose minds need changing. Otherwise, those not directly affected have the tendency to not do anything. 

 
 

Who is online

dennis smith
pat wilson


39 visitors