Liz Cheney warns Trump will never leave office if he's elected president again
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • 10 months ago • 266 commentsBy: Speaker Mike Johnson (NBC News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Dec. 4, 2023, 3:21 PM By Rebecca Shabad
WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., warned Monday that if Donald Trump is elected president next year for a second term, he will try to remain in power beyond those four years.
"There's no question," Cheney said about that possibility in an interview on NBC's "TODAY" show with host Savannah Guthrie in advance of the release Tuesday of her book, "Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning."
Asked if she believes Trump would try to stay in power forever, Cheney said, "Absolutely. He's already done it once," referring to his efforts after the 2020 presidential election to overturn Joe Biden's victory and to stop its certification on Jan. 6, 2021.
The U.S. could become a dictatorship if Trump is re-elected, Cheney warned. "I think it's a very, very real threat and concern. And I don't say any of that lightly and frankly, it's painful for me as someone who has spent her whole life in Republican politics, who grew up as a Republican to watch what's happening to my party and to watch the extent to which Donald Trump himself has basically determined that the only thing that matters is him, his power and his success."
Cheney said it's "naive" for Americans to think the country would survive another Trump presidency. She argued that Americans cannot count on a House led by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to stop Trump or a Senate whose members include Republicans Josh Hawley, of Missouri, or Mike Lee, of Utah.
Asked what would happen if Trump tried to overturn the election again with Johnson as House speaker, Cheney said it's "too dangerous to even contemplate going down that path" because, she said, they all had a "practice run" in 2020 and 2021.
Cheney suggested it would be safer for the country for Democrats to take control of the House, saying emphatically that Johnson and the Republicans currently serving there cannot be in the majority in 2025, especially if it has to determine the outcome of the presidential election.
"I think what we have seen is that you cannot count on this group of elected Republicans to uphold their oath," she said.
Cheney repeated that she would "never vote for Donald Trump" and that she would "do whatever it takes to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in 2024." Asked if that means she would vote for Biden, she repeated, "I will do whatever it takes."
"A vote for Donald Trump may mean the last election that you ever get to vote in," she warned. "A vote for Donald Trump is a vote against the Constitution."
The former congresswoman and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said she would see how the presidential race unfolds over the next couple of months before deciding if she would try to launch her own White House bid.
Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a politics reporter for NBC News based in Washington.
Tags
Who is online
425 visitors
Just a word: that second meme is quite interesting in its appearance.
You know the former 'president' didn't plan on leaving the first time. 'The boss said he wasn't leaving'
I would have love to see White House Security physically manhandling out the front door
I'm chuckling as I write this - picturing that is hilarious - it would take quite a few WH security to get the job done.
lol
He and George Santos could form a support group.
Does it not bother you that Trump (a vindictive traitor) might be PotUS?
There are people who it not only doesnt bother, but are happy to see it. There is not a lot of point in asking people when you know their answer.
Extremist MAGA are not interested in answering intelligent questions.
Has Trump been charged with treason?
Apparently you do not understand that one can be a traitor without being convicted of treason.
The word you are looking for is "No". As in "No, he has not been charged with treason".
What you said, that's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I did not claim he was charged or convicted of treason. I stated that he is a traitor.
You not understand the difference between these terms. Treason is a crime. 'Being a traitor' is not, in itself, a crime.
Treason = a legal term
Traitor = a descriptive term
One can be a traitor without being convicted of treason, but anyone convicted of treason is ipso facto a proven traitor.
Then by all means explain your traitor comment.
The question in 1.3.3 was:
Pay attention. I was a simple "Yes" or "No" question. If he was charged, then the answer would be "Yes". If he wasn't charged then the answer would be "No".
Given he was NOT charged with treason, the only answer to this question is "No". Again, what you gave is opinion.
What do you not understand? Look up the meaning of the word 'traitor'. Surely you know enough of what Trump did after he lost the election to understand that he violated his oath of office, attempted to undermine the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate.
Again, you fail to understand that treason and traitor are distinct words with different meanings.
I used the word traitor. You keep translating that into treason.
You do not understand what you are talking about. Look up the meaning of the words.
I don't care what word(s) you used. The question was:
And you dodged the question with nonsense you accuse others of doing.
So where is it written and charged that Trump committed treason?
LOL, you do not care about the words I actually wrote; you just want me to answer a question that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
What a pathetic, ridiculous little game you play.
Jeremy, Trump has not been charged with treason. Thus he has not been convicted of treason. Trump has also not been charged with grand larceny, attempted murder, and many other things.
He is, however, a traitor.
You can be a traitor against , uh, your family as an example. You cant commit treason against your family.
Trump put his own interests above his constitutional duty to protect America. That makes him a traitor all day long.
You are playing this pathetic little game too?
You want me to show where Trump committed treason when I have never once suggested that he has.
What blows my mind is that you, et.al. actually seem to think that you have something here when in reality you are just illustrating that you do not know what you are talking about. Treason and traitor are not synonyms.
And on your quote, I have already written @1.3.6 that someone who has committed treason is ipso facto a traitor. But someone can be a traitor without committing treason:
Even the most basic Google search delivers the two usages I have already described:
Trump is a traitor per usage 1. If Trump were to be charged and convicted of treason, he would then also be a traitor under usage 2.
[Deleted]
Don't give me your condescending bullshit, you made the claim, you define what you meant!
"You want me to show where Trump committed treason when I have never once suggested that he has"
Then, by definition, you can't call him a traitor.
You either understand the difference between 'traitor' and 'treason' or you do not. Thus far, your comments illustrate that you do not understand the distinction.
To understand the distinction you first need to do some work. So, as I noted:
Look up the meaning of the word 'traitor'. Surely you know enough of what Trump did after he lost the election to understand that he violated his oath of office, attempted to undermine the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate.
No, Jim, by definition I absolutely can call him a traitor. See usage 1. Good grief man, this is obvious.
You continue to ignore the meaning of the English word 'traitor' and keep on with your bullshit.
What do you, et. al., hope to accomplish by illustrating to all readers that you cannot ( not likely ) and/or will not understand the meaning and differences of the words: traitor and treason?
In case you haven't noticed Jim is gone for the night.
Allow me to help you.
Treason: taking money from an enemy country, failing to secure the nation's borders and letting everyone in and last but not least, letting a terror group monitor and murder 13 American service members.
Corruption: An Attorney General who has two standards of justice, protects his boss and prosecutes his bosses opponents.
Un-American: Voting for such people.
[deleted]
Calling someone a traitor is an opinion, nothing more.
Actually it is applying standard, common, definitions to Trump's behavior. Trump was point blank asked by Kristin Welker of Meet The Press what was he doing during the afternoon of Jan 6th. His answer was "I'm not going to tell you that". If he had been doing his duty as president he would have been doing everything he could to stop the riot, and would be happy to say that to Meet The Press.
What Trump was doing was watching the riot on tv and making phone calls to Republican congresspeople trying to get them behind the plan to stop or delay the electoral vote.
You would know all this if you watched the Jan 6th committee.
And all the people who testified to this were Trump's white house aides.
I have no need for help. I am correctly using the English language.
Help your friends who (clearly) refuse to even acknowledge standard English definitions.
So based on your opinion of standard, common, definitions it is your opinion he is a traitor. Got it.
Good talk.
Well you finally got one aspect of this correct.
Yes, RDtC, the word 'traitor' per usage 1 is a colloquial term. It is not a legal determination, it is an opinion. The opinion can be supported by substantial evidence, but it is an opinion.
The word 'traitor' per usage 2 is formal — the result of a legal consequence. If someone if found guilty of treason, they are ipso facto a traitor.
Do you acknowledge the dictionary meaning (usage 1) of the word traitor?:
If so, then you should understand that Trump can be legitimately labeled a traitor based on his post election loss behavior.
If not, then you should do a little research and get on the right side of truth.
Whenever someone says "you should" it means you should look at the evidence the way I do and come to the same conclusions I do because it is my opinion that my opinion represents "truth".
I just say you are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine and don't try to convince them that my opinion is more accurate than theirs.
You SHOULD try it.
what is your opinion of what trump was doing on jan 6th
He could have handled it better.
What they want is for everyone to forget Jan 6th and Trump's attempt to steal the election ever happened. With that sort of amnesia in place, they think they can then justify putting him back in office.
If Trump wins, no justification necessary.
Is that what that means, RDtC? You have declared the one and only meaning of the phrase "you should"? How ridiculous.
Read the dictionary. I am correct. This is obvious.
Do you actually believe that anyone really (I mean really really) believed the actions of Jan 6th would change the outcome of the election? Maybe a dozen whackadoodles but I would have a hard time believing that is what a thousand people (including Trump) really believed. If our democracy is that fragile we might as well stop having elections now and let the warlords have at it.
And if you say yes I will tell you that you are welcome to that opinion.
Not really saying much there. Imagine if someone gave you a serious analysis of Biden's illegal immigration actions as: "he could have handled it better". Would you be impressed?
[Deleted]
Yeah, man. the entire US government was going to be overthrown by a few thousand folks, mostly unarmed, without military support and with no plan.
Seems likely, huh?
The wrongdoing is not contingent upon being successful.
So it does not matter how utterly stupid it was for Trump to attempt to steal the election, the attempt is the wrongdoing. His indictment is not because he was successful but because of his (failed) actions.
I would be impressed if a Democrat said it.
Acknowledging there is a problem is the first step and signals they at least have their eyes open.
It seems the dems new favorite term is "threat to democracy". Treat to Democracy started with Donald running and went through a thousand people protesting (and some rioting) and now has landed on anyone that doesn't agree with what I want.
have you ever heard the phrase STOP The Steal ?
If you were positive that doing something would not change the outcome would you do it anyway?
Well, if they can only convince enough people of that nonsense, then most likely those people will ignore what Biden has presided over.
Do note that really what they are saying is don't vote for Trump as opposed to "vote for Biden for these accomplishments" because they know its a loser.
Yes, I also recall "Not my President" after Trump got elected.
No, I would not. But, then again, I am rational. We are talking about Trump.
Some people said Bill Clinton was not their president, some said George W Bush was not their president, some said Obama was not their president. None of those people broke into the capitol building and entered the Senate or tried to enter the House.
Unfortunately it is probably a better strategy for Biden if he does focus on it. Of course the Republicans are trying to help him with their militant stance on abortion.
I suppose these days it is wise to pander to single issue voters.
Correct, and they are being punished for doing so. But it still begs the question how many of them believed their actions would change the election and how many of them were just being stupid.
It seems that way but I don't understand it.
Me either.
Product of too many voting against someone instead of for someone.
The question what is your opinion of what trump was doing on jan 6th
The response He could have handled it better.
Seems like a direct response to a direct question.
To me, yes that is what it means
Now that I can relate to.
While he can be irrational I don't think he is stupid. My opinion is he may have been pissed and decided to let it ride while he was still looking for ways to legally keep his job. He can be petty and vindictive and not have alot of loyalty to those that support him unconditionally but I do have trouble thinking he believed his little insurrection would change things.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
At first I figured he was just throwing a tantrum and was emotionally refusing to concede the election because it was embarrassing for him ... his ego could not take it.
But when he started engaging in coercion and fraudulent activity that caused me to think that he was operating irrationally — that he had gone over the edge. People who are desperate will often become irrational. He could very well have understood that he had no real shot at stealing a US election, but pursued it anyway because he simply could not bear the idea of being a loser after all the trash talk he has made during his lifetime about 'losers'.
Hard to say, I cannot imagine how a mind like Trump's operates. Someone whose entire existence is a labyrinth of lies and exploitation is beyond my comprehension.
[Deleted]
And Ashley Babbitt would not have died on January 6, 2021. Oddly enough it was not until after a shot was fired and heard all around D.C. and the country. . . taking Ashley's life that President Trump finally settled in to issuing a statement of "surrender" to the truth that he could not win or force Congress to concede to his wishes of throwing out a legitimate election.
Just think about it long and hard (everybody who reads this): Had Trump not persisted in stalling for time during the "storming of the Capitol" . . .Ashley Babbitt would be home alive somewhere RIGHT NOW.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted. Use your flag.]
[Deleted]
That is YOUR comment. It is totally false and I think you know it is totally false.
Post the sentence of Tigs where you think he said Trump committed treason or STFU.
[Deleted]
IT IS NOT AN OPINION. What Tig has said about this is right there in black and white. What he said is not a matter of opinion. Just stop.
Post the sentence of Tigs where you think he said Trump committed treason or [Deleted]
He called him a traitor. To be a traitor, one needs to commit treason.
You get shown dictionary definitions and still come back with this crap? WTF? You are not as bad as the other guy, but keep going in this vein and you will get there.
Jim, I have provided you the dictionary definition of the word 'traitor' @1.3.15. I have repeatedly explained that there is a colloquial usage of the word 'traitor' and a legal one (the one that is determined as a consequence of being guilty of treason).
You ignore the colloquial usage (and this is listed as the first usage) and insist that the only meaning of the word is the legal one.
You are demonstrably wrong. Yet you, et. al., continue with this obvious charade.
Trump is a traitor. The reason he is a traitor (this is my argument) is because while PotUS, he violated his oath of office by attempting to subvert the CotUS which he had sworn to preserve, protect, and defend (“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”).
He violated it by attempting to steal the 2020 election through lies, coercion, fraud and incitement. On top of that, he sought to violate the foundation of our democracy by disenfranchising the voters.
Trump is not guilty of treason and has not even been charged with same. He is a traitor because of his violation of his oath to the nation while PotUS.
[Deleted]
Post the sentences or sentences where you think Tig said Trump committed treason.
If you are right, then we will all know it. Come on, make yourself look good.
Those sentences DO NOT show Tig saying Trump committed treason. I am flagging you again for trolling.
[Deleted]
As you have been told already, calling someone a traitor is a matter of opinion. How did he violate his oath specifically?
LOL, you pretend as though you were telling me something that I have directly stated and pretending that I disagreed. Who do you think you are fooling?
I have been telling you that calling Trump a traitor using the colloquial usage (usage 1) is opinion. It is not a legal determination (usage 2) but rather an individual determination .... that means it is opinion by definition. I have stated this clearly and repeatedly.
You have replied to my post where I explained in detail my argument as to how Trump violated his oath and why he is a traitor. The answer to your question is right there in my post. But here it is again to make it super crystal clear:
Trump is a traitor. The reason he is a traitor (this is my argument) is because while PotUS, he violated his oath of office by attempting to subvert the CotUS which he had sworn to preserve, protect, and defend (“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”).
He violated it by attempting to steal the 2020 election through lies, coercion, fraud and incitement. On top of that, he sought to violate the foundation of our democracy by disenfranchising the voters.
Trump is not guilty of treason and has not even been charged with same. He is a traitor because of his violation of his oath to the nation while PotUS.
As an addendum. How on Earth can you not see that Trump violated his oath by attempting to steal the 2020 election? What would Trump have to do in your mind beyond engaging in lying, fraud, coercion and incitement to cause you to recognize a violation of his oath of office?
Attempting to disenfranchise the US electorate alone is a violation of his oath. Suborning Pence to table certified votes from states is a violation of his oath (and the CotUS). Attempting to coerce Raffensperger and Bower to find votes / submit false electors (respectively) is a violation of his oath. Do you need me to deliver the entire list again?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I bet you are right. I know I won't be here when it does because I won't be alive 50 years from now.
Heck, some still haven't got over Reagan YET!
The impossible truth is Trump can not do anything wrong when it is action taken against democrats, liberals, independents, secularists, and Others. Negative partisanship, the ability to detail problems caused by the aforementioned individuals while ignoring issues and actions on the part of their support network, abounds. We have to get rid of Trump once and for all—politically.
If Liz Cheney thinks that Trump would stay in office forever if reelected, she is even a bigger dumbass than previously suspected.
Well, "forever" is an indefinite period of time and of course her words allude to Trump's inability to hold on to power if others take him to task for his arrogance on the topic of staying or leaving at the end of a constitutional second term.
She is an idiot to think Trump could remain in power after his term is up.
But a useful idiot. At least until the left realizes they are not getting the political points they were hoping she would bring..
Joe Biden is a liar and unfit for office
And what about Trump? He is a perpetually deluded fool who can't be persuaded of the truth, but instead is allowed by his supporters (the real problem) who let him gallivant around in his sick state of mind. Apparently, MAGA supporters like Trump being sick in the head delusional, because you won't get him a proper doctor to look into the matter if only for political 'welfare' sake!
Trump is no more delusional than Cheney and others thinking he could stay in power after his term.
And here you are defending the man you 'say' you won't vote for or support when asked, but somehow the delusional old fool deserves online support for his stupor!
Her and every other leftist and Democrat. They've been blathering that nonsense since 2016.
Nope, but ever since January 6th, 2021...
The day Trump tried to remain in power!
You can deceive yourself, but we wish to 'verify' that he can not be getting Trump's sick, psychotic self away from any pretense or 'effort' to change the United States or the world. That man is truly deranged and his legal distractions are "legion." That alone should give his supporters pause. . . which it does not . . . which speaks volumes about what Trump supporters want out of this.
I have no earthly idea what that is supposed to mean.
Funny. I talked about Liz, talked about Joe and talked about the lame "right side of history "argument. Nowhere did I defend Trump. No where did I even mention him. Also please tell me where I said I would not vote or support anyone, anyone at all. Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? Facts and truth not working well?
If you aren't just constantly poutragef about Trump, and not shouting your righteous indignation of all things Trump, some will accuse you of "supporting" Trump.
Maybe they are thinking that all people are as "loyal" as they are to Biden.
There is enough rancor and angst on the left side of the spectrum for everyone, no need for me to go crazy, too.
Oh, we hear you, hear you loud and clear. "Leave Trump Alone!"
Keep beating a dead horse, please.
What else can Democrats run on besides being anti-Trump?
The stellar job Biden is doing?
LMAO at that thought!
In a sane world they wouldnt need anything else.
Too many folks voting against someone instead of for someone.
Pretending Biden's Presidency has been a success is foolish.
Americans should not vote for a pathological lying traitor under any circumstances. If you were running against Trump I would vote for you. And you're no Joe Biden.
Damn straight, I still have all my mental faculties and have never lied on national television.
Thanks for the compliment, totally unexpected.
I agree. So who do you suggest we all vote for?
Whoever you wish to vote for, of course.
A predictable dodge.
We are almost certainly going to be stuck with Biden v Trump. No third party has a chance. Of those two, who would you vote for?
As is your retort.
Next.
I am not smart enough to tell people who they should vote for. I always figured people will vote for who they think will do best at the job.
I know, silly me, right?
I often wonder about by what authority some people have or think they have to tell others who to vote for without knowing a thing about the person they are telling it to.
I'm "A-Okay" with that!
Implied support for Trump is "front and center" now.
Again, what are you saying in relation to my post?
I said nothing about support.
Of those two, who would you vote for?
Have I not made myself clear that I will not vote for Trump?
If not, here it is, no wishy-washy what-ifs and hypothetical nonsense:
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP.
Nor will I ever vote for Biden.
I expect no more questions about who I would vote for if the candidates are Biden and Trump, as this is just repetitive now.
You thus demonstrate that we are likely faced with a situation where we do not have a realistic option to vote FOR someone.
So let's go back to the inception:
Here ⇡ you complain that people are not voting for someone when there is no realistic chance to elect someone we actually want.
The real problem is that we (the general electorate) likely will not have an option to vote for someone we want as PotUS. So all we can do is vote against the worst, not vote at all, or issue a protest vote.
The problem is the failure of the parties to produce a nominee that the people actually want to vote for. If either party could do that, they would win the Presidency in 2024.
[Deleted]
I am against the concept of voting for someone just because you don't want someone else to win.
That's the way I feel, and you don't have to agree with it.
And as you insist, if Biden v Trump, you will not vote for either.
Reality is not always nice and pretty so sometimes we are faced with a choice of bad and much worse.
Okay with me if you are going to let others make the hard decision. Stay home, vote for a third party, ... , the rest of us will try to make the best decision given shitty choices.
Yes. I am glad that is now clear.
Yes, I didn't know that was in dispute.
Thank you so much.
Your request has been noted.
Your pronouncements have no value here!
Implied consent and defense of Trump (3).
Please, if you insist on responding to me, do so to what I have written, not just some wild thing you have imagined.
As I have told you multiple times now--QUOTE ME!
That leaves Joe out.
Nothing more than screaming "end of democracy " in order to sell books. Pretty pathetic.
Gee, sounds like something directly from the DNC playbook.
Just a useful idiot trying to sell books and hopefully land a job on MSDNC.
Please get on the proper side of history, for goodness sake. Do not keep defending a delusional old fool of a man who can't take loss of a job well. And by the way, Trump is actually politically dead, but for being propped up by supporters and enablers.
Politically dead?
then why the non-stop attacks on a dead man?
that makes zero sense.
My guess that even in "political death" they fear this man.
Get on the right side of history is one of the lamest arguments to do something going. One small step over lame memes.
Good question. Why are you and others supporting a politically dead shell of a man. We attack him politically because Trump is evidently feeble and lost in his head and is being foisted on a nation that deserves better than such a man to lead it and the world!
I do not support Trump but get awfully tired of some liberals trashing a politically dead man incessantly.
We fear the unforgivable if we don't speak out against what some conservatives want for the rest of us who do not share their vision of this country's (and the world's) future!
Sure you do. But yet. . . you constantly and repetitiously show up for more "exhaustion" on a daily basis. I won't ask how that is working out for you. Got to go. Day about to get really busy.
Don't tell me who I support.
You don't know me.
Keep telling yourself that.
EXACTLY. But we are all in his pocket. Ridiculous claim and they just don't get it.
It all depends on the definition of support. Some folks seem to think it is support only if it is financial in nature and some feel it is support if you don't constantly scream about the evils of Trump. It is a pretty wide gap so it can actually mean almost anything to anyone. It is kinda like being called a racist or traitor or Nazi or promoting genocide or fascist. The words have little if any meaning because people insist on using them incorrectly.
BTW, when Trump's delusion about being a "born' winner starts to cost him what it cost FOX News to indulge and profit off (wow they had to give it all back in typical fashion of associating/hanging out with Trump) to the tune of 700 plus millions. . . he and his supporters MIGHT get 'straight' about their false, flimsy, narrative!
Back later to night.
Your whole post is entirely unrelated to mine
Thanks for stopping by.
“The words have little if any meaning because people insist on using them incorrectly.”
And no meaning whatsoever to those that refuse to acknowledge, much less accept their application and impact.
yeah, and those who are using those words, many times incorrectly, should stop doing so in order to restore meaning to those labels.
Authors who do not try to sell their books are idiots.
He sure has conned lots of Democrats.
Not sure about conned but he sure scares the shit out of them....................
“Not sure about conned…”
Of course it is all about the con…he could care less about making a mark, it’s all about identifying and using the mark…always has been, always will…for there is always a dupe.
The lifelong conman, thug, grifter, thief, mafia wannabe, miserable worthless POS, piss poor excuse of a human being.
I bet they don't feel the same way about that freakshow Mike Johnson who has a book coming out which is probably chock full of conspiracy theories, there is one I know he is promoting, which was Pizzagate.
Whoops, my mistake, he wrote the intro to a 'book' about 'baseless whackjob conspiracy theories and homophobic slurs' by Scott McKay, a politics blogger (whackjob) The Revivalist Manifesto
Unless the terms are used correctly there is no application or impact......just the left calling people names to try and make themselves feel better.
Joe isn't a thug. The rest of the post does capture Joes essence though.
No, he wrote the Forward, an Intro is typically written by the author, the Forward isn't.
PT Barnum would be proud...or appalled
You know why he scares the shit out of me? He wants to burn the constitution and persecute those who don't think like him. There is no half way with this monster
Yeah we have heard that kind of shit before..........................
Exactly.
No, Jim, this is not just hyperbole. Point of fact, Trump did —right in front of your eyes— violate his oath of office and attempted to undermine the CotUS simply because his ego could not deal with losing the election.
This miserable human being thinks he is above the law (and the CotUS) and is demonstrably (life-long) vindictive; it is his modus operandi.
Hell, Trump is proud of this:
Far too often.
At this point, they should be elated!
... from Trump.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution ,” Trump wrote in a post on the social network Truth Social ... (Emphasis added)
Yawwwwn got anything new?
Snoring.
When in the fuck are you all going to comment on the virtues of Biden? Whatcha got?? You and TiG. Other than he isn’t Trump. Pathetic to say the least
Your 'rebuttal' is that this is an old interview?
I just presented strong evidence that it is in Trump's nature to be vindictive. But first I reminded you that Trump has already attempted to violate the CotUS while serving as the PotUS.
So the idea that Trump would, in his second term, attempt to violate the CotUS and be vindictive is not only NOT hyperbole, but it is what one would expect from this individual.
Yawn and snore are well known flags to those on social media. Those retorts are tacit admission that the individual cannot formulate a rebuttal.
I have made it quite clear that I do not support Biden. So why are you asking me to comment on his virtues?
I support Haley. I thought you understood that. What has confused you?
Yes, your comment is definitely pathetic. A comment that asks a question and then presupposes an answer without any basis is pathetically ignorant.
This link describes some of the most significant accomplishments of the Biden administration. Right wingers who comment on-line will, of course, as usual, not read it, dismiss it and/or distort everything it says. That's to be expected.
Also, he isn't Trump.
Well. . . we have your posts as background EVIDENCE of support for Trump. You can 'say' you don't but evidential materials-your comment history-supports my theory of the case.
Then all you have to do to prove all of that is simply QUOTE me.
While you are looking for the quotes--try to find the ones where I said I would not vote for Trump again, will you?
It does not matter what you 'say' about not voting for Trump; we will not be in the ballot box with you because of PRIVACY POLICY/LAW. So we will not have EVIDENCE of what you do in the 'booth.' However, your online comment history is replete with Trump defense even on order of magnitude!
Watch your tone with me.
Once again, all you have to do is quote me.
But that is just it: Trump is politically dead. . . MAGA is carrying his carcass into a perceived win of GOP primary/ies. MAGA is planning to resurrect this old, expired, "jumped the shark" fool of a man who thinks he won an election in 2020 that no 'force' in this world can tell him: "No, you did not win in 2020. Thus, we are likely 'doomed' to repeat playing and hearing of the soundtrack of this demented old fool's grievances if/when he loses in 20241
Joe Biden the politician may be many different things, but Hillary Clinton he is not! And no, Trump is not a "man's-man" or "man of the people."
Short and sweet. Thanks Jeremy, I will. Though I would rather not have to speak out against MAGA, but. . . It is What it Is!
I am absolutely at a loss of words to explain to you that I will not vote for Trump.
Pardon me, but that seems an odd thing to say.
Has someone actually confused Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton? Wow!
Amen.
Wow. . .nice attempt at gaslighting your "opposition." We have background evidential comments which deliver a 'verdict' on who is untouchable in your worldview-despite his, Trump's, delusional state of mind—or feeble state of mind. Or maybe I should say Trump's "delicate" state of mind.
The snake was swindled out of its oil while a member of the cast of Celebrity Apprentice.
Implied consent and defense of Trump (2).
Are you reading my posts or just randomly responding?
Loyalty is not a 2-way street for trmp I don't care what he says.
I see a lot of "he signed" but not much else other than a couple of puppetmaster's prompted executive orders. Signing what others propose isn't leading but enabling. Period.
Did you even read my post?
Why so angry?
He said the person who allegedly leaked that the former 'president' rushed to the bunker during the George Floyd protests should be executed. He said that about Milley also.
So what.
He wants to execute them TG.
I know he does. He wants them lined up against a wall and shot
Your reply comment is as weak as expected, maybe even weaker, but thanks for playing!
Weak link, weak response is all that is necessary.
I thought that you might want to know the difference between a book's Forward vs. an Intro.
At least you admit your response was weak. You get credit for that.
As for Comment 2.2.69 "Weak link", I repeat:
Proven.
I read it. Perhaps you missed this................
Weak sauce is contained in your link.
That's a truly specious argument.
Yawn and snore...
Actually, he has said that he would like to be in power forever a few times, when he was referring to China's President Xi.
Anyone thinking that would be possible here is just wrong.
But hey... they gotta spout the party line and push the fear. That's all they have as they just cannot push Biden's record as a winning record. There are so many kitchen table issues that are just wrong that American families have to deal with and as the sitting President the blame all falls on him. And he's done several things that have just made the daily life that much worse for the average American.
So they push fear because that's all they have. IMO it doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is, they will push that "MAGA fear" until the general election because it's all they have.
In today's reality with potential nominees of Biden and Trump, both parties prop up poor candidates.
You clearly see the defense of Biden by the Ds. Do you also recognize the irrational support / defense of Trump by the Rs?
Of course I do. I've said several times that I do not support Trump and will not vote for him. I would prefer that he not be the party nominee. But the comment I responded to was about Biden and not Trump.
Why do you constantly ask the same questions and forget previous comments that lay it out?
[deleted]
[deleted]
All you do here is defend Trump from attacks by pointing out the flaws in the investigations or the bias of this person or that that is prosecuting him, or to belittle his democratic opposition. You are fooling no one.
I have never heard you say that Trump is unfit to be president , period. Thats it. He cannot be voted for by patriotic Americans. Thats it, the end.
Of course, as we know, there is no end to this insanity.
Your declaration that you will not vote for Trump is not the same as recognizing the irrational support / defense of Trump by the Rs.
Those are two related but distinct questions.
[deleted]
I can call bullshit to this but you always see only what you want to see. Pointing out flaws in investigations or someones bias it not defending Trump, but you just cannot see things in that light because of your obsessive need to condemn all things Trump.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Lots of MAGAS can't vote Trump, especially after Jan 6th, because they are now Felons!
Trump shouldn't be able to vote for himself!
In this context, it is defending Trump.
Just say Trump does not deserve a single vote from a single American, period. Then your other comments will carry more weight.
As I said, that's how you see it. I do not. It's like me saying the grass is green when someone else says the sky is blue. I'm not saying anything about the sky so it should not be read into as if I said the sky is yellow.
yes, that is definitely true.
He's already tried it once.
Actually, it would be better for the GOP to let Trump's delusion and stupidity dwell within him alone without the presidency. Because if anybody wants to see this country fall or go to war within-elect an imbecile delusional fool who thinks we will SERVE his whims. Shit will hit the proverbial fan all the years Trump will be in office. Want to see CHAOS that is unmanageable and unsustainable: Elect Trump and let him try to railroad and subordinate liberals. That shit is dead on arrival.
MAGA get it through those thick, stubborn minds. . . liberals will not surrender to your whims of what America USED to be returning. We're done with that for good! We will not serve you EVER like it was in bygones periods.
Who is President?
You asked Snuffy Do you also recognize the irrational support / defense of Trump by the Rs?
Snuffy answered "OF COURSE I DO" So it's obvious he does recognize it.
Stop playing your constant I gotcha games.
Read my comment before penning nonsense:
Do you not understand that my reply in blue acknowledged Snuffy's declaration that he will not vote for Trump??
My reply in full explains that not voting for Trump is different from recognizing the irrational support / defense of Trump by the Rs.
In other words, one can NOT vote for Trump and simultaneously NOT recognize the irrational support for Trump.
Two different ideas.
Pay attention.
"Kitchen table" issues like:
1. The border wall Trump PROMISED on day One (but we all can agree the man is a perpetual liar) but as Christie points out only got 50 miles of new wall built?
2. Trump PROMISED on day One to end "Obamacare" (but we all can agree the man is a perpetual liar) but did not because of McCain and so he is re-PROMISING to get it done if MAGA supporters bite into his lies again hook line and sinker.
MAGA by now OUGHT to realize that Trump is a "f-ing" liar who will say anything to get what he wants out of the lot of you?!
Trump is a hype man. He learned lessons from his days in McMahon's WWE on how to promise the NEXT EVENT is the biggest event EVER!!! It's called: HYPE. And Trump loves to use it to CASH In.
DONT'NT BELIEVE THE HYPE!
[Deleted]
Of course you're ignoring that the reply of 'OF COURSE I DO' was a reply to the only question asked in your post. I then followed up with the statement that I do not support him and will not vote for him. But you cannot let a dead dog lie, you must continue to push.
No. Kitchen table issues like can we afford to buy food and medicine this month or do we need to cut/ration one of them. Will we be able to take a vacation next year or will we not have enough money left over to do anything? Kitchen table issues like the economy, crime, etc.
Hell, even a lot of Democrats don't believe in "Bidenomics" anymore. They realize it's a losing game.
Last years talking points are trumped by real world gains...
4.9% GDP Growth, full employment, rising wages and such!
Read the exchange ... honestly.
Now pause. Your answer of "Of course I do" is about the support / defense of Trump by the GOP. Had you stopped here, everything would have been fine. I asked a question about the GOP and you answered it. Nice and clean.
But you chose to turn this into an attack. You set up your attack with your (benign) next sentence (a non sequitur):
This shifts the question away from the GOP (my question) to yourself (a question I did not ask). That sentence is irrelevant for the question I asked and does not support your answer. I noted this in my reply to you:
The rest of your comment illustrates why you shifted my question from the GOP to you personally. You did it to make an entirely dishonest allegation:
Dishonest crap like this lessens the likelihood that someone will take your comments seriously.
Now, let's attempt to continue the discussion without the bullshit.
Given that you recognize the irrational support / defense of Trump by the Rs, what do you suppose is driving it? What drives the majority of the GOP to support Trump (a traitor and likely a future felon) when there are decent, qualified, fit, younger, smarter Republicans with substantially better character seeking the nomination?
[Deleted. And please use the block quote feature properly.]
The Democrats are getting so desperate to distance themselves from Bidenomics that now they are considering a new term--MAGAnomics because the public hasn't been able to be fooled by the 'success' of Bidenomics.
Of course, there is no such thing as Maganomics, but I don't suppose that will stop them any.
That must be why so many people want biden to be president again.
ROFLMAO!
Trump couldn't get more than 50 miles of border wall built in four years or a new "affordable healthcare plan" and you suppose he will get food and medicine on the "kitchen table" while abiding all the dynamics which can/will occur in a four year presidency.
Trump is all hype and "aspirational." Of course, BUY him and he's nonrefundable and nonexchangeable. You must have noticed how Trump has wrapped himself around and is clinging to the title, "President," even when he is not. . . that man got REPUBLICANS killed during the world-wide pandemic here and abroad because of his so-called 'leadership' over a virus. . . hell, but for the government he claims to detest functioning in-spite of him he likely would have died from Covid neglect himself!
Um, Biden. No one told you? ( I did say, "tried").
Very good.
Now, considering that Biden is President, isn't it true that no matter what anyone thinks about Trump or anything he may have done, the system worked and Biden was elected?
I am not going to succumb to hysteria because I am afraid of what may or may not happen if Trump wins an election. I see no need to panic over something that has never been accomplished before in American history.
Read the exchange honestly.. you're funny as hell. You parse and read what you want to read and then argue about what you 'know' others meant to say. It's obvious that you don't want an honest discussion, only capitulation.
You are just not worth it.
I didn't say anything about Trump doing that. What I said is that voters will use kitchen table issues to decide who they will vote for. And those kitchen table issues that they are thinking about include the economy, crime, border security and the like. To claim that I believe Trump will get food and medicine on the kitchen table is dishonest at best.
Then what do you say about Biden who when he became President, he had vaccines developed and being distributed, more treatment options available and still had even more Americans die from Covid during his leadership? What do you have to say about him?
I've said it before, guess you need to hear it again. I don't support Trump and will not vote for him. I would much rather see Haley gain the office. This time around Biden must run on his record and in case you continue to miss / ignore polls, he's losing the support all around the country. Based on his record and the current state of the country, I doubt that Biden will win the general if he ends up the Democrat candidate.
And this is why your comments will not be taken seriously. I just delivered the exchange quote by quote (@2.3.29) and explained exactly why I responded at each point.
You cannot rebut the fact that I acknowledged what you wrote and that you shifted to a strawman to make a bullshit claim. Lying about me just makes things worse.
Well, I have repeatedly said I won't vote for Trump.
Do I have to say that in every single post?
Of course you did'nt say anything about Trump, period-if I recall from yesterday. I will not reread the thread to check, nevertheless. It is permissible for me to talk about Trump's border FAILURE and his recent ANNOUNCEMENT that he wishes to repeal the Affordable Care ACT this time where he failed miserably during his prior presidency. And, is is NOTABLE that no MAGA supporters and MAGA "Friends" have called out Trump for not having a replacement for OBAMACARE then and after nearly four years out of office Trump does not allude to any plan he has prepared to be ready on day One of a new Trump Administration!
Border security and the LIKE . . .are relevant to past/promises of the past about building border walls and "the LIKE" is relevant to any/many policy positions including the Affordable Care Act that Trump has 'offered up' yet again for MAGA supporters to look at him regarding.
Trump the HYPE MAN.
Keep talking Liz. Hopefully the sane members of the Republican party will hear you and oust the nuts.
Thank-you for saying, that Ma'am. The only saving grace is that he won't live forever
Anybody who actually believes this is a fucking moron.
True enough
The fucking morons are people who believe he won't try.
So yes you do believe it?
Personally, I do not believe Trump would try for a third term, but I would also not be surprised if he tried. Would you?
Prior to him losing the election in 2020, if someone told you that he would try to steal a lost election through fraud, coercion, lies and incitement, would you have believed them?
I would have not believed them. No other sitting PotUS has ever done anything like that in the history of our nation. I would have seen it as possible given the character of Trump, but even for Trump, the Big Lie con-job was unexpected.
Trump will do whatever he can get away with, and anything that keeps him out of prison.
Im sure he would claim that preventing him from a third term is unconstitutional and thus he would not follow the precedent.
Since he is capable of publicly stating that the PRA gives him the right to hold classified documents when it does the exact opposite, he is certainly capable of ignoring the 22nd amendment. Maybe a stupid excuse like "not part of the original Constitution; just an add on because of FDR". Or maybe he will argue that this only applies to elections and that he can have a third term without an election and thus be constitutional:
If he has a chance to run for a third term he will say the 22nd amendment doesnt apply to him.
Amazing that after all he has done, this miserable human being might be reelected to the most powerful office on the planet.
I can recall a movie I watched about 2 decades ago about Nixon, (can't remember its name), and there is a scene where Nixon is in the Oval office lamenting to his aides that he is concerned about not being re-elected as Republican candidate for a second term at the upcoming convention when Kissinger walks in and tells Nixon that Nixon is going to go to China, meet Chairman Mao and open up trade relations with China to gain a market of a billion consumers to American manufacturers and retailers and that on his return he will walk into the Republican convention to get the biggest first vote re-election candidacy in the history of the USA. Nixon goes to Kissinger and hugs him and says: "Henry, you're a genius". Nixon then goes back to his desk and says (and this is why I posted this comment) something like "Do you think we can alter The Constitution to allow for a third term?"
So perhaps in the minds of Trump and Trump supporters they may not be the first to think of staying in power longer than is authorized. However, I think Cheney was foolish to make that comment about becoming a dictator because according to American law it cannot happen and even though Trump may have tried to stay in power he failed. It was a foolish comment because it should be an impossibility and would probably just be considered an attempt to scare people - and I think that it will have a negative rather than positive effect.
Nixon asking about a 3rd term is ironic given he didn't survive his 2nd term
Well, keep in mind it was just a movie, but IMO not only does art imitate life, but also life often imitates art (or do I just watch too many movies to have noticed that).