Trump Chooses Absolutely Baffling New Topic For Latest Rambling - Politics Discussion

[–] moviechatterer (16326) a year ago

" a lot of people aren’t too happy"
I love it when he references his fictional army of "lotta people" to either back him up , or diss someone else.
usually its to "prove" one of his boasts that he's the greatest at something.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16257) a year ago

"A lot of people" are the voices in Trump's head.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16257) a year ago

Read the comments on Yahoo for this article. They're brutal!

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) a year ago

"I am absolutely livid that THEY dared to change the names of Fort This & Fort That!"

reply

[–] Galilguy (2533) a year ago

Why would I want to subject myself to more bullshit from the Loony Left? your useless posts are more than enough..

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3295) a year ago

tRump says this and you call the left loony? Lol!

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) a year ago

Totally ... you don't want to actually learn something by accident!

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18253) a year ago

The comments about the 3 dead soldiers are messed up.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

I'm certainly not happy about the changing of historical names to pander to modern day leftards.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16257) a year ago

I am a US Army veteran and and I spent most of my enlistment at Fort Bragg. Now it's called Fort Liberty because Braxton Bragg was a traitor and a terrible general. Why do you worship these traitors?

"Bragg is generally considered among the worst generals of the Civil War. Most of the battles he engaged in ended in defeat. Bragg was extremely unpopular with both the officers and ordinary men under his command, who criticized him for numerous perceived faults, including poor battlefield strategy, a quick temper, and overzealous discipline. Bragg has a generally poor reputation with historians, though some point towards the failures of Bragg's subordinates, especially Major General and former Bishop Leonidas Polk—a close ally of Davis and known enemy of Bragg—as more significant factors in the many Confederate defeats under Bragg's command. The losses suffered by Bragg's forces are cited as highly consequential to the ultimate defeat of the Confederacy." - Wikipedia

It's doesn't matter what name an Army fort has been changed to because it changes nothing about the Army's mission.

Anyway, what does your post have to do with Trump’s obvious mental decline? My OP doesn't have anything to do with fort name changing.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21649) a year ago

Biden repeats same story word-for-word just minutes apart, raising fresh concerns about age, fitness for office

https://nypost.com/2023/09/21/biden-repeats-same-story-word-for-word-and-minutes-apart-raising-fresh-concerns-about-age-fitness-for-office/

A goldfish has approximately a 30 second memory.
Every 30 seconds it's a brand new day.
Yep. Joe is a goldfish.

Biden repeats same story word-for-word just minutes apart, raising fresh concerns about age, fitness for office

https://nypost.com/2023/09/21/biden-repeats-same-story-word-for-word-and-minutes-apart-raising-fresh-concerns-about-age-fitness-for-office/

A goldfish has approximately a 30 second memory.
Every 30 seconds it's a brand new day.
Yep. Joe is a goldfish.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

"Worship these traitors"?

Your anger over a war from over a century and a half ago, is shit talk. This is about leftards showing their power.

Leftards, when they whine, need to be riduculed, not given into.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21649) a year ago

.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust (1130) a year ago

More dog-whistling to keep his civil-war-wanting followers simmering should he be disqualified from running due to being found a convicted felon in any of his on-going legal troubles.

Pretty simple stuff when considering that the words "trump" and "complicated" are rarely associated with one another.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Changing historical names to pander to modern woke assholes is a bad thing.

Pointing that out is reasonable, not "dog whistling".

Your fearmongering is divisive and harmful to this nation.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust (1130) a year ago

Yes, it is dog-whistling.

Refusing to acknowledge that is what is divisive and harmful to this nation.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for racial minorities since the mid 60s.

The belief that there is a huge seething pool of secret wacists for politicains to send secret code words to pander to them is

a. RETARDED. and

b. Divisive.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

They were named after traitors in the first place to pander to racists.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Doubtful. But irrelevant. The reason for the naming is long ago. TODAY, we are pandering to bad, anti-American, leftard assholes, in removing the names.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

Learn your AMERICAN history, Comrade.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

We are dsicussing a time period not long after teh civil war. By the standards of today's leftards, EVERYONE involved was wacist.

There would be no need for anyonoe to pander to any group of wacists.

Your words are retarded and show a retarded level of understanding of AMERICAN history.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

Fort Bragg and Ft Benning were established in 1918. Ft Hood and Ft A.P. Hill were established in the 1940s. These weren't "not long after the Civil War", they were very long after the Civil War during Jim Crow and the Klan. They were named after Civil War enemies of the USA because racist confederate sympathizers wanted their "heroes" honored to stick a finger in the eye of Black period.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

I have read that WWI was a big part of the healing of the wounds of hte civil war.

Nothing like fighting against a common enemy to bring people together.

The point stands. By modern standards, everyone involved were wacist, and thus there was no reason to pander to any racist groups, based on racism.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

What is 'wacist'?

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

It is my way of mocking lefties when they whine about race. I am imagining you guys talking with a lisp.

With all due respect.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

Quite funny when you are the first person to mention race. You play the race card the first chance you get.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Wow. What a stupid thing to say.

I might have been the first person to MENTION race, but the subject is mostly about race.

That you focus on the first person to use the word, like that means something...

Incredible.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

If a black person were to do that you know you would mock them for it. Do not play stupid.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

If a black person were to do what? Use a lisp to ridicule someone or something?

Depends on what they are ridiculing... if that is what you meant. If not, I hvae no idea.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

No if they mentioned race at all. It is only acceptable for you to bring it up is what I can see. Also I found it funny how you said the lisp wrong lol. Even your mocking is stupid.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Your claim makes no sense. On any level. You are projecting your weird... ness about focusing on words more than the actual issues being discussed.

That is a YOU issue, nothing to do with me.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

Yeah play dumb. It is okay that is you signaling you lost the argument. Oh and for good measure always blame others take no responsibility for your actions or behavior. I hear that is common among conservatives.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

The issue being discussed, was at least partially racial.

So, I addressed it.

Your pretense that that is somehow... wrong? or something, is just you being a weirdo.

The point stands. Trump is right. Chaning names to pander to anti-American lefties is stupid.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

And if a black person discussed it even in that context you would take issue with it.

The point stands, the only race allowed to bring up race is the white man in your book.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

When I think about the discussion of race as a political issue, in my mind, the asshole I am discussing it with is generally a white leftard.

GENERALLY. Sometimes the person is a black or other minority leftard.

I am an ideologue, a partisan ideologue. I discuss ideas and issues.

YOU use race to avoid such discussions. Becauses you know on some level that your ideas and political positions are not good for America or Americans, so you have to lie and trick Americans into supporting them.

ALL, you are doing right now, is shutting down the discussion of hte thread topic, by calling me names, ie wacist.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

I do not care what you think about. You are incapable of thinking beyond generalizations. This is where I hold the edge over you.

Ironic when I have not mentioned race once where as you do it constantly. You know your bias and are attempting to gaslight people. Seriously how do you sleep at night being this much of a sleazebag?

I never once called you racist. Nice projection but fail. I called out your hypocrisy learn the difference.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Dude. Just because you didn't explicitly say "you are a racist", doesn't mean that your argument is not accusing me of racism.

This way that you are... ignoring the meaning of words and ideas to focus instead on... specific words, as though if you avoid them you are not using those ideas or accusaations,

is fucking retarded.

At best, you have a serious form of autism. More likely you are just a dishonest asshole.

THe point stands. Trump is right. Renaming these forts is panding to the worst elements in our society, the scum of the earth.

Leftards.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

And just because you are saying that I am calling you racist does not mean I am. You do a ton of projecting. The second you find out someone disagrees with you politically you judge them. I accused you of hypocrisy not racism.

The point also stands, Trump is a pathetic garbage human being and his supporters will support him no matter what.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

If I believed as you accused, that "only white men" are alloweed to bring up race, that would be me having a vie of whites having special rights and/or priviliges.

ie, racism.

I do not beleive that. YOu are wrong. You are just talking shit on me. Because that is what you do.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

That is me calling out hypocrisy there is a difference. I think you believe all the effects of racism went away the second a bi partisan agreement was reached. It is okay lots of moronic conservatives think this way.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. NO, what you describe would be racism. THus you accussed me of racism.

2. Nothing I every said implied in any fashion that "all effects of racism went away the second". That is just you talking shit to justify your blind and irrational opposition.

3. The point stands. Changing names of things to pander to leftards is bad.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

Nope I accused you of hypocrisy.

Oh plenty does. I never see you ever complain about racism towards any group except your own. This definitely is a dead giveaway at what you are trying to do. Tell me do you agree with Charlie Kirk targeting MLK the way her has been doing as of late?

The point stands Trump is a corrupt politician. Hurry donate money to him he needs your hard earned money.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. You accused me of both. This minor point was about the racism. I am willing to believe that you, as a lefty are so reckless and unthinking when it comes to accusations of wacism, that you do it without a single thought in your "brain". BUT, that does not change the fact that you did it.

2. Plenty of people whine like fags about real or imagined wacism against blacks. Most people accept and support racism against white people. Wacism against minorities is illegal and hunted, while racism against whites is legal and institutionalizied. Thus, i speak more about anti-white racism. What has Kirk been doing to MLK recently?

3. Your hate of Trump has made you stupid.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

Nope I accused you of one incorrect. And what is wacism? I thought you said you were saying it with a lisp? If that is the case you are saying it wrong. You already proved how stupid you are with saying that. You are an idiot do not bury yourself further.

Nope you have nothing to support that claim only your view. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1746925062417182842

Your support of Trump is rotting what little of your brain you have.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. I am mocking your false accusation of wacism.

2. Anti-white discrimination is widespread and legal and institutionalized. It is delustional to deny it.

3. I am fine with him being critical of MLK. I personally think he is vastly overrated, especially considering the disaster that the modern "civil rights movement" has become.

4. No, I'm fine. You seem to be fucked up.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

And doing it wrong. That is not with a lisp like you claimed. Epic fail on your end.

Yeah I am not buying that. Just like how someone like you I bet does not believe white privilege ever existed.

Interesting. However you are more offended by someone being critical of Trump. Good to know you are showing your true colors. MLK did more for this country than your orange deity will ever do you can trust me on that. I do not trust your view on any figure. Funny how Kirk gets a pass for this but if anyone says one word about Trump you come unglued. Kirk as well as Candace Owens are grifting pieces of trash.

No you need help. Get it before it is too late.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. Whatever. i am mocking you. I think I am mocking you fine.

2. Anti-white discrimination is widespread and legal and institutionalized. It is delustional to deny it. Those that claim "white privilege" is a "thing" are justifying anti-white racism.

3. I do not trust you. MLK is overrated, imo, and some revisting is called for.

4. No, I'm fine, you are the asshole here.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

You did not even mock right. You realize that right?

Was white privilege ever a thing?

Get back to me when Trump ever comes close to having the positive impact MLK has had. I do not trust you either. Trump will never have something as profound as I have a dream speech. Something I know which makes you cringe.

Nah I think you need help.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. i am open to ways to mock you better. Right now, I got "Wacism". It is a start.

2. Certainly not since Jim Crow ended. Today anti-white discrimiantion is the norm and legal and widespread.

3. The "I have a dream speech" has failed miserable. And been betrayed completely. Trump's movement is new and still has the possibility of victory.

4. Said the fool that denies antiwhite racism. So, you are clearly an idiot or a liar.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

That one failed try a better one. You messed that one up and made yourself look dumb.

Did not answer my question. So then it was a thing before Jim Crow?

Your opinion. Trump will come nowhere close to that speech. Mark it down.

Said the guy who claimed white privilege never existed. The racism against whites is nowhere close to what blacks faced back when they were slaves.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

1. Not as dumb as you look, mr no anti-white discrimination.

2. Before my time. But certainly not since. Why do you ask? Are you going to do that stupid, " so the effects disappeared immediatey retardness"?

3. Possibly. But the struggle is not yet over. Not for TRump. MLK? Utterly betrayed by his own followers.

4. Slavery was over a hundred and fifty years ago. "Diversity" and "disparate impact" are TODAY and everywhere.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust (1130) a year ago

Corbell - "This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for racial minorities since the mid 60s."

If that were ACTUALLY the case, there would be a bi-partisan consensus agreeing with you. Obviously though, there ISN'T.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

How do you get from what I said, ie "consensus on equality" to what you said, ie "consensus aggreeing with me"?

reply

[–] WhoToTrust (1130) a year ago

Well obviously, based on the fact that the consensus you claim is present doesn't actually exist.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Dems and republicans both agree on equality for minorities, but dems have been told, falsely that repubcians oppose them.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1428) a year ago

No you look rather dumb by even saying your insult wrong.

So then the answer to my question would be yes white privilege did exist at one point. Notice how you can't just answer a question with a straight answer?

His followers have no effect on his speech. MLK's speech will be remembered far more than anything Trump will ever do in his life.

Irrelevant. My point stands. You have a roof over your head and are not being whipped or made to pick cotton. You will never face that in your lifetime.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

A lisp wouldn't make someone say "wacist". It would be "Rathist".

So I guess you are just stupid.

reply

[–] Corbell (11007) a year ago

Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

What WWI or WWII battles involved any US forts?

Maybe he got de-banked upside his head too many times.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) a year ago

Not American, but the French Maginot line was made up of forts.

> An unforgettable visit 30 m underground along 3-km long tunnels to understand the operations of a large ouvrage of the Maginot Line, built to protect us from attacks. " The fort at Schoenenbourg, the most important Maginot Line fortification in Alsace, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) a year ago

When they put Trump in prison, he is going to ask for the prison's name to be changed to Fort Trump. ;-)

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) a year ago

Maybe they can make Trump and his brainless followers happier when it comes to his approaching incarceration by calling his prison Fort Trump.

Oh ... I already said this 6 days ago. ;-)

reply