Actually, that’s incorrect. You can only be for or against a proposition (you accept it or you do not accept it), neutral would be in the against category in the sense that you do not accept it.
You can be neutral on a question (does god exist?).
Simply not accepting a proposition is no different than asserting it’s false. Either way, you do not think or behave as if the proposition were accepted as true.
No, the default position is that God is unknown.
That’s not a default position.
When it comes to what we believe about a proposition, you can hold one of three options; for, against or neutral. When it comes to your approach and your actions, there’s only two; for or against. Natural doesn’t exist.
Think of any scenario in real life where the word default comes in; like the settings on your phone. Notice how when you go to reset, default doesn’t mean “duh I don’t know”… instead it means we’re going to choose certain settings for you and you can adjust them if you want.
In the course of everyday life we have to choose how to live. Whether to pray before we go to sleep, whether to go to church on Sundays, whether to burden ourselves with knowing what the Bible says. There’s no neutrality there. You either do or you don’t. If you don’t, you align yourself with god’s nonresistance. If you do, then the opposite.
So you can claim to be neutral, but when you live every aspect of your life as if he doesn’t exist, there’s no meaningful distinction.
Perhaps you could tell is what policies or proposals you are actually against? Cause you’re jumbling like 3 different conceptions of socialism here, making absolutely no sense.
Doing WHAT thaty is unconstituti0onal accordfing to you?
I already explained this. Here, let’s walk through this together…
P1: The constitution says only Congress can authorize war.
P2: Donald Trump started a war without congressional authorization.
C: [Insert the conclusion that logical follows here]
And how does your claim match the several actions taken by Truman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama & Biden, as I addressed earlier, and if they are con trary to Consdtituti9onal muster, where were you, then?
For most of those I was either not alive or in elementary school.
Second, this is pure whataboutism. Whether other presidents violated the constitution is irrelevant to the question of whether this president is violating the constitution.
Third, if you want to know why this example is far more egregious than the others to the point it would be considered impeachable whereas the others are not, I already explained that to which you unsurprisingly ignored, only to pop up here now pretending to be interested in it. I am not writing it again. Here is what I wrote in post 32:
”Unlike the other examples, there was no imminence to this threat. Not only were the conditions such that the US could have easily taken their time debating a war powers resolution without losing their position, but then once the campaign began Trump has repeatedly joked about how it’s a war but he’s not allowed to say that because of legal problems. In other words, “I am blatantly violating the constitution and I don’t care”. The oath the President takes when he gets sworn in is to faithfully execute the laws. If violating that oath in such blatant and obvious fashion about literally the most serious aspect of his job isn’t impeachable then nothing is.”
Because I don't want to... WGAT? See the list of 30k Trump lies? The hell I don't. I demand seeing them.
No, you’re pretending because no one is this inept. I just googled “Washington post 30k lies list” and it was literally the first search result.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
Your heroes have already tried that. Twice. Failed twice. Go for three? Go ahead. Fail thrice.
I don’t really doubt that, but the failure isn’t on the democrats, it’s on republicans and the voters for failing what is essentially a national IQ test.
At no other point in American history would any president accused of such egregious behavior with even half the evidence available against Trump would have survived. Trump did because his followers are a cult and the rest of the country is too stupid to understand the level of BS Trump and his allies were selling here.
You have merely made the claim that Trump violates the Constitution, as most of the left pundits who are supposed to know and demonstrate by evidence, but don't.
The evidence is the fact that he’s doing it right in front of our face.
The United States is right now, at war with Iran. That’s a fact. Congress did not authorize this war. That’s a fact. The constitution grants only to Congress, the power to declare war. That’s a fact.
You do not need to be a constitutional law professor to figure this out.
Such as the claim of 30k Trump lies. I see no list of lies to substantiate the claim.
Because you don’t want to. The Washington post laid this all out and it’s publicly available. That aside, do you seriously deny this? When was the last time Trump spoke publicity for even a few minutes about anything without repeating a torrent of lies far beyond anything a fact checker would in real time even be able to keep up with?
How dores history make sense of that. What is blatant?
Blatant is that which we can easily see and/or deduce without a degree in history being necessary.
You really seem to be struggling with processing this claim. What is it you are finding so difficult in comparing this instance to any other and taking note of the obvious and significant differences?
In the eyes of the law, YES. By what other measure does the Constitution offer?
The other measure would be impeachment and removal from office.
But that goes the other way too... philosophy alone doesnt count as evidence that god doesn't exist.
The position doesn’t require evidence because that’s the default position.
Which is worse? That should not be what people ask when electing the leaders of a country. It should be flatly "Which is good."
This is perfectly fine if we’re talking about primary elections, but this ignores the reality of the dual party system we have in place. Once we’re down to our final two options, standards are irrelevant. You either vote for the lesser of two evils or you end up with the worst possible outcome.
This kind of thinking is exactly how we got Trump in the first place. Many on the left took issue with how the DNC pushed Hillary forward and decided to voice their discontent by abstaining from voting. The result is that Trump just barely won. As a result we lost the Supreme Court for decades, among many other things.
In 2024 a major segment of the Democratic Party was fiercely upset with the Biden administration over its handling of Gaza, so they decided that they would stay home or even vote for Donald Trump. They wanted to show the democrats that their vote wasn’t free, decision ended up costing them a candidate who at least pledged to fully support their cause and instead they ended up with a president whose philosophy here was that Israel needs to “finish the job”.
You can preach and even advocate for the world you wish you lived in, but you still have to live in the real one.
I stand by my characterization. Important to note that there are millions of Trump supporters so of course no one explanation will apply to all, but when we look at the ways in which they repeatedly dismiss everything he says, the legitimacy of the kayfabe characterization is really not deniable.
What is it that they always say… “he’s a negotiator”, “he’s trolling the libs”, “he’s a master of distraction”… the through line anytime Trump supporters are forced to defend his indefensible behavior the underlying assertion is that he’s not being serious. That directly implies he’s doing it for show, i.e. it’s not real, i.e. kayfabe.
And once we recognize that angle, the rest makes perfect sense. Trump shows himself everyday to be a complete moron, MAGA thinks he’s a genius. He shows himself to be totally unhinged, MAGA trusts his judgement. He shows us how much he cares about stupid things like his ballroom and the reflecting pool, MAGA thinks he’s is all about the little guy. You can’t look at what he does and conclude it tells you the opposite about him without believing it’s for show.
I don’t disagree at all with the three traits your AI listed, but I would say those are psychological underpinnings, kayfabe is the resulting mechanism by which MAGA attempts to resolve them.
Unsurprisingly, you continue to ignore the entire point of the thread so you can focus on the one part on my responses that you think you can own the lib on, and you still fail.
Oh? Then tell me why Democrats never seriously suggested Truman be removed for Korea, Kennedy for Vietnam; Johnson for escalating Vietnam and expanding to Laos, Cambodia and Dominican Republic; Carter to Iran, Clinmton to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq & Sudan; Obama to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
First of all, this is pure whataboutism. You know he’s in clear violation of the constitution, don’t play stupid.
From the standpoint of impeachability, none of these examples are analogous. The offense is not the technicality that he engaged in a war without having that declaration of war vote. The offense is in how blatantly he did it.
Unlike the other examples, there was no imminence to this threat. Not only were the conditions such that the US could have easily taken their time debating a war powers resolution without losing their position, but then once the campaign began Trump has repeatedly joked about how it’s a war but he’s not allowed to say that because of legal problems. In other words, “I am blatantly violating the constitution and I don’t care”. The oath the President takes when he gets sworn in is to faithfully execute the laws. If violating that oath in such blatant and obvious fashion about literally the most serious aspect of his job isn’t impeachable then nothing is.
But we’re dealing with MAGA, so of course for Trump nothing is. But hey, tell me more about how impeachable his actions would have been if he lied about a blowjob.
For which Pelosi lobbed an impeachment [twice], which the Senate denied and acqitted.
Wow, Trump’s cult following republicans refused to convict him, you really got me there.
OJ was acquitted, so he was innocent right?
Besides, the corruption in his second term is unrecognizable compared to his first term, even MAGA readily admits that. So what is your point? Are you really denying that his corruption isn’t blatant and far beyond anything we’ve seen from any former president? Do you really need me to run through the list?
See the 1807 Insurrection Act [1807], which is an explicit exception to the Posse Comitatus Act
Which federal courts already ruled did not apply here.
I don't think we can reach common groung in absolutely anything because you're clearly a member of the Democratic Party.
The problem is not that I’m a member of the Democratic Party. The problem is that you are totally uninterested in learning anything that might contradict your cherished right wing views.
Throughout this conversation you have made numerous claims to which I have either explained why your logic doesn’t follow or challenged you to provide any evidence to support them. In every case you just repeated the same talking points with no regard for any of the problems shown with what you presented. That’s not good faith discussion, it’s psychological protectionism.
Show me the crime/misdemeanor that warrants impeachment other than Dem hatred
Starting a war without congressional approval that has resulted in the US being worse off in every way than before it started and he’s now back to threatening to wipe out an entire civilization.
Or his blatant corruption that no serious person would ever argue is anything close to normal. Even half of MAGA readily admits his corruption is staggering.
Or we could talk about him putting the military in American cities because they’re not bowing down to his will. You can pretend all day it was perfectly fine, but then you’d be a hypocritical lying prick. If Obama sent the military into Alabama you’d be up in arms, literally, and you know it.
I could go on but there’s no point, not only will you pretend nothing he’s done is impeachable, but you’ve also totally missed the point of this thread. I didn’t argue that Trump has done things for which he will soon be impeached, I’m arguing that the progression of his decline coupled with the reality of democrats taking power in the house and maybe the senate, coupled with his lame duck status in a party moving on from him is going to make things way way worse, to the point that the things he’s done will force republicans hand. It’s not a definite, but I’d say very reasonably plausible, maybe even 50/50. Either way, this is not going to end well.
You said the hotels were a sort of temporal solution because of the pandemics
No, I didn’t. I pointed out that the hotel was closed due to the pandemic at the time the illegals were placed there, emphasizing that they were just using the space because the shelters in the city were all full. That btw is common sense - if you need to put these people somewhere and you have hotel spaces that are closed down, that’s the obvious choice.
And again, when you say people are “staying in 5 star hotels”, you are very clearly implying that they are receiving 5 star accommodations, which is the hole point of where the outrage here comes from but is not true at all. It’s blatant propaganda which you are just regurgitating.
What is this Trump's spending I was supossedly defending?
You said you didn’t see how tax breaks couldn’t help the economy, even though it raises the deficit just the same. I am also quite sure you support funding for ICE as one other example and would argue it’s putting Americans to work, even though you haven’t said that here to be fair.
I guess he got rid of the whole USAID because of the American economic situation, which is a valid spending cut because the yankees are not bound to help other countries.
Again, USAID doesn’t exist because we wanted to be charitable to the world. It exists because it helps us advance our interests. I already explained this, no surprise that you continue to ignore it.
As to the useless programs of USAID, I referred specifically to the ones associated with the wokism like the infamous DEI program.
You didn’t name a single program, you just caricatured them as “woke”, which suggests that you have no idea what any of those programs were even for and are just repeating the propaganda you were fed. Let me know when you want to have a real conversation about whether these programs were anything near what you are propagating.
I think I made myself very clear and my comments should leave no room for misinterpretations.
You think wrong. This is the problem with living in an echo chamber, you don’t ever have to question the things you are told so your beliefs are not a product of facts plus logic but of repetition. No critical thought needed because everything is “just obvious”, and when someone challenges you they become unworthy of being taken seriously by default.
I think of an another old quote by George Carlin; “never argue with stupid people, they’ll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience”.
I’ve always disagreed though, why let them have that advantage?
The point of arguing with MAGA can never be to change their mind or even to engage in good faith conversation. It’s an exercise of dealing with pure stupidity, nothing else.
It makes me think about something else also. I was recently listening to some good commentary on how MAGA politics is essentially all Kayfabe - the unspoken agreement in wrestling that even though we know it’s all fake we’re going to pretend its real and never waiver from that. To Trump supporters they don’t care about anything he says or does because to them it’s all a performance. In their minds, this is all one big game where Trump says and does whatever he can to piss off the libs while delivering for them. And they know this cause they know how to read him, cause he’s one of them.
But now that he has no more elections to win, no more MAGA votes to court, what he’s showing them is that all this time, the joke was on them. He was never one of them, he always was and still is a Manhattanite billionaire who cares more about being welcomed into the elite club than anyone in rural America. For many, their eyes are finally starting to open. We obviously still have a long way to go.
Bullshit, This benefit went on after the pandemic.
What part exactly was bullshit? Please, do explain.
So, why didn't Biden let more inmigrants in if it was so profitable for the Americans? Are you really reading what you're writing?
I am, you clearly are not.
I never argued it was “profitable” or even beneficial to pay for the housing of illegals. What I did there was throw your own logic back at you, and your response demonstrates that you do in fact realize it does not work.
When government spending goes towards things you agree with, you argued it helps everyone out because it puts money in Americans pockets. But when it goes towards things you don’t agree with, even though it’s going into Americans pockets just the same, you argue it’s the cause of people’s economic problems. Your position is not rationally coherent.
You can argue it’s bad policy. You cannot argue that this relatively minuscule portion of government spending is causing your problems. That’s the point.
Yeah, sure, 1% of $7 trillion dollars, it's almost nothing. Hahaha.
1% of anything is still 1%.
Trump did good when removing this shitty program. I've got to admit that USAID had some good socials programs that were very useful for the third world, but Biden increased the budged unnecessarily for their woke agenda and that caused that Trump got rid of it. It is a pity.
First off, you totally ignored everything I said about why we even have USAID in the first place. That’s not surprising because you haven’t made a substantive argument this entire conversation, but I’ll point it out anyway.
Second, this is literally what the phrase “throw the baby out with the bath water” is talking about. If some of its programs are good and some are bad, keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones. That’s second grade level logic.
Third, I’d really love to hear which programs exactly you’re referring to. I’ve heard and followed up on these claims a dozen times already. Every time some DOGE apologist cites “woke” programs that needed to go they always turn out to be lazily mischaracterized programs that had a real point and purpose but were caricatured to sound stupid. Given the lack of depth you continue to show here, I suspect you just read a few right wing headlines and are now here now spewing the propagandistic garbage you were fed.
Do you want me to do a doctoral thesis about that? The subject matter is so clear and so evident that it exempts me from giving further explanation.
This is what 911 truthers say.
When you make a claim the burden is on you to prove it. That’s how rational conversation works. “I’m exempted from explaining my positions” is certainly not.
I'm not going to defend Trump but what all you described is exaggerated.
I admit that it’s probably unlikely but then again so was the prospect that Trump would start an unprovoked war with Iran, or hold a UFC cage fight at the WH on his birthday, or tried to take $1.8B from the treasury to pay off J6 rioters. If I had predicted any of those things in 2024 you would have told me I have TDS.
The fact is, if you understand anything about narcissistic personality disorder, and especially how that meshes with cognitive decline, everything I’ve laid out is the natural path forward. It doesn’t get better, it only gets worse.
And this stuff that I’m predicting is hardly hypothetical. Trump has increasingly shown a blatant disregard for the well being of Americans and for the very idea that he should act within the law. His corruption is beyond staggering, it’s gotten to the point where he is outright daring the country to do something about it. His circle is continuing to shrink, and with each departure he only alienates them further because he is literally incapable of accepting that he might be wrong about anything.
The question here isn’t about Trump. We know who he is and we know where he is heading. It’s about republicans. They know how bad this is, it’s only a question of how much more of this they will tolerate. And even though they’ve never shown a real spine before, come 2027 when they are forced to look towards a future without Trump, that’s when I believe we will see a major change that will snowball. As they become more hostile to Trump he will become more unraveled, there’s no where else to go.
The one thing I will say that will probably get in the way are the democrats because they’re idiots. If they’re smart, they’ll wait. They’ll lobby behind the scenes for Republican support to remove him and strike when the timing is right. But they’re not, so they’ll probably move too soon and that will cause republicans to rally around Trump like they did in 2024. And by the time things get so bad even republicans would remove him, we’ll be tired of this argument cause by then he’d have already been impeached 3 times.
Are you serious? Paying 5 star hotel rooms for illegals? That sounds like a joke.
To me it's very clear, the left is equal to economic waste.
There was one example of illegals being placed in a “5 star” hotel, and that hotel was closed due to the pandemic and repurposed for migrant housing. They were using the space, not receiving 5 star accommodations. This is not a serious response.
Beyond that, your point is still irrelevant. This wasn’t an economic decision, it was a policy decision on what to do with migrants being dumped into the city. That’s a totally different issue, and you know that.
Back to the actual point; you have yet to address the fact that the money being spent on these illegals did not go into their pockets, it went into the pockets of other Americans to do the work and/or provide the space. So again, if you are claiming anyone is right to call out this issue as the cause of their economic pain then you have yet to provide a single rationale to justify that.
Maybe the most costly American agency that has been promoting wokism was USAID which was closed by Trump. This agency promoted the lefty agenda like the green agenda, the LGBT agenda, and that kind of shit lefties promote internationally.
And you think this is what destroyed us?
USAID was something like 1% of the federal budget, and was supported uncontroversially for decades by both parties until Trump started telling all the uneducated people how terrible it was. It wasn’t just about charity, it was about increasing our soft power globally, and the work they did often saved lives and money back home. When diseases break out in another country, you think they just stay there? Of course not.
But you can’t speak to that, so you just repeat your propagandistic talking points and rail at like the 1.5% of the USAID budget you cherry picked that sounds really bad if you don’t bother to ask what these programs actually did.
You might remember that a female bodyguard that was supposed to protect Trump didn't do a good job because of that woke policy promoted by Biden.
I see. There was one female on Trump’s detail, so you blame the one female, ignore the failures of every other man on his team, then pretend she only got the job because of DEI, none of which you have any evidence for.
I can tell a lot about it but it would be a waste of time.
Yeah, it’ll a waste of time because you clearly have not bothered to critically examine any of your claims and are just looking for me to agree with them. That’s not how reasonable conversation works.
Perhaps your points would land if you’d explain them rather than assuming everyone else will just “get it”. That only works within your echo chamber.
As to the other imputations, I don't understand how tax breaks couldn't benefit the whole economy, not just billionaries.
That’s kind of my point. When money is spent housing illegals, then it is legitimate to blame your problems on that decision. But when it comes spending money on just about anything else, it’s not. That’s not rationally defensible.
You can argue that we should not be spending that money on illegals, that’s fine, but every dollar the government spends within the country helps the economy just the same. That money paying off illegals housing goes towards hotels, which allows them to continue paying their employees, vendors, etc. Plus the view that it “could have gone to Americans” only makes sense if you actually believe the government should be subsidizing other Americans, which the political right is against in the first place, so it fails every consistency check.
a huge financial crisis is coming, but I guess Democrats will blame Trump for that.
Yeah… that’s the next step when really bad and irresponsible decision making leads to really bad and foreseeable outcomes…
He got elected because the US was already reaching a point of no return where the international left was taking over the cultural narrative. In short, the US was well on the way to becoming like Europe, a decadent continent.
You've got to thank Trump for having the balls to correct that. It's not the best prospect, I accept it, but it's good enough to solve the fuck-ups Biden left.
This is incoherent.
We were talking about the economy, then you slipped in the “cultural narrative” which the left allegedly destroyed, without explaining what or how, or how it relates to the economy.
What did the left destroy exactly? What fuckups did Biden leave? Why are we thanking Trump? Happy to be enlightened.
Americans were pissed off by the illegal inmigration because they felt it was the cause of their problems. In part it was. It seems that you forgot that many Venezuelans received as refugees commited horrible crimes in several sanctuary States. Despite that, the government continued giving them assistance with the taxes you and all Americans pay.
Isn't it outrageous for you?
Help me understand that logic here. So if illegal immigrants receive government assistance, then that’s partly to blame for people’s problems because that’s money that could have gone to Americans. But when the US gives tax breaks to billionaires, spends billions on totally unnecessary wars, or even when the government cuts programs (as in actual money going to actual Americans)… that’s not?
you're not considering the economy in Biden's term, it was terrible. And if Trump is not solving the inflation in the US now, he will face the same problems.
The difference is that inflation during the Biden years was almost entirely caused by a global pandemic. And one easy way to confirm that is to look across the globe and see that nearly all of our peer nations were experiencing the same thing, so there is no real reason to consider it.
Inflation during this term is almost entirely created by Trump and his policies, and it was all foreseeable, the man is just an idiot.
Harris is a stupid woman.
I'm not a native English speaker but it's easy to realize that she's not as lucid as people think. You just have to listen to her.
Stupid only by the highest standards one could possibly hold. And it’s fine to hold that standard for such a high and consequential position like President of the United States, but the point is that anyone who isn’t bewildered that such an incredibly imbecilic moron like Trump could ever get elected doesn’t get to pretend they care about such standards.
Your analysis exists in a fantasy world where there are no tradeoffs, only absolutes.
@Imaginary_Double_R
There truly is no point in trying to have a discussion with you.
And also: an ideological demagogue never pauses for a second to think that there might be some priorities that matter.
The exercise of prioritization is literally the one part of this hypothetical I granted would have any value. You would know that if you’d bother to read and absorb what I’m actually saying to you instead of engaging in your usual imaginary conversations.
Do you ever get tired of dodging a serious thought exercise
No, because it’s not serious. Sure it might be interesting to think about which public services we would want if limited to a set number, but the point I’ve been making here is that this is an incredibly stupid way to think about governing. Serious responsible governance means looking at each problem for what it is and deciding what to do about it based on its own merits. We don’t look at a problem and decide if we should solve it based on some totally arbitrary count of other problems we have solved and declaring that problem solving time is now over.
the point of the Constitution is to destroy itself
Do you ever get tired of arguing with yourself?
what 10 Federal services would you pick and why?
I would advocate to overturn the amendment.
What the founding fathers intended with regards to the size of government is irrelevant to what the country needs 250 years later. The latter is a discussion for sophisticated people representing their constituents to try and figure out. That is the whole point of what the constitution sought to create.
The Republican base is signaling loud and clear that they want their elected representatives to stand by Trump
But that base is shrinking by the day, and one of the major questions is, once we get past the midterms and the party is forced to look to a future without Trump on the ballot, how will they maintain political relevance? This is part one, and that’s going to start in January.
Part two is Trump increasing erratic and careless behavior. We all know Trump suffers from some pretty serious ailments that are not going to mesh with this environment. I believe there will come a point where even these republicans will not be able to keep their MAGA mask on, Trump does not care about this country and will burn it all down to preserve himself, but even he has found some limits like with this latest slush fund. As we move onto 2027 he will continue to feel increasingly isolated, powerless, and ultimately… the worst thing he could ever face… irrelevant. That’s only going to make him worse. So we probably haven’t seen anything yet.
The question I have is what happens to the GOP post Trump?
A very interesting question indeed. One of the things I think Trump showed is that there never really was a base for what the old GOP was selling. People didn’t care about fiscal conservatism, they wanted the brown people out and to own the libs. Now that Trump has brought that out into the open and without the veneer of a cartoon character like Trump to mask it, I don’t think any of that survives.
As the forever optimist who is always wrong about predictions, I am hopeful that with the dust settling on the ruins of the old GOP the country is finally coming to terms with what I’ve long been saying is the core issue in American politics and the world more broadly; the wealth gap. I think this is where it all begins and all that crap which follows is just misplaced anger over it.
it really comes down to where their loyalties really lay
This is one of those things about Trump that get swallowed by the day to day insanity that is his administration but really should be talked about a lot more - his obsession with loyalty. It should be treated for what it is - a tell of just how dangerous, depraved and unfit he is.
After being challenged by Ron Desantis he would often tell the story of how he decided to give him his endorsement because of the way Desantis came groveling for it, and after being challenged in 2024 Trump would talk about this to show how disloyal Desantis is.
What’s remarkably absent from his entire telling of the story or why it matters is the part where he has, even for a second, any consideration whatsoever for the people Desantis was running to represent. An endorsement is supposed to mean something because it’s supposed to show that the person you’re endorsing is good for the country in your view. Trump doesn’t even pretend to care about that and worse, he doesn’t even seem to grasp that concept. It’s all about him and it always has been.
In a sane world that alone would be disqualifying, but with Trump we don’t even have time to care about it. But we should, because that goes right back to everything you described. The reason I’m optimistic Congress will remove him is because they have to answer to the voters. His administration officials don’t, and Trump’s big lesson after 2020 was that he didn’t appoint people loyal enough to him to pull off the things he really wanted.
It’s a remarkable fall for a party that a decade ago used to carry around those pocket constitutions everywhere they went. It was to them, right there with the Bible, and they made sure to brand themselves as the party of the constitution at every opportunity. Now they elect a president who demands personal loyalty over the constitution. It’s beyond satire.
Bold claim I know, but hear me out.
As recently as even a few months ago I would have said no way, but now I’ve actually moved to thinking it’s more likely than not. Here’s the case for;
Come 2027, Trump will officially become a lame duck. Republicans will be looking to 2028 and realizing that Trump’s void cannot be filled. They will need to find another way forward. Not just another candidate, another path entirely.
Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to take control of one if not two chambers come January. This will only drive republicans further away from Trump and Trumpism.
Over the past few months Trump has demonstrated what mental health experts have been warning us about for years; given the above two points, Trump is only going to go deeper and deeper down his narcissistic hole. This is where the past few months come in. Just over the past few weeks Trump has:
This is extreme, even for Trump, but here’s the thing… he’s doing all of this in the heart of election season.
So here’s a genuine question for those who doubt my prediction here… what will Trump do once it really sets in that he has no election left to concern himself with? If 2027 goes as all evidence points to, it will be clearer than ever to him that he has no chance of pulling off some kind of constitutional heist. What will he do then? Just how far will he go?
The man is a lunatic like we’ve never seen. With his back truly against the wall, it will only get worse. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet, and I think even the MAGA cult won’t be able to defend it.
Thoughts?
It defeated your arguments
Just like how Trump won in 2020
lol
You’re one one-hundredth of a point above the radical line. Congrats.
Yeah, so both sides are bad so no reason to join the radical left.
”You too” wasn’t my argument, so nice try.
