The greatness of Trump as seen from 30,000 feet - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] BicD (161) 2 months ago

That will never happen.

I gave a scenario in which if the following was GUARANTEED to happen if Trump was elected, would you vote for him.

Violent crime in the US is non existent. In fact there is no crime.
There is no such thing as unemployment. Everyone has a job.
There is no inflation. Everyone is rich.
Border crossing is legal so everyone can come on in.
There is zero deficit.
Taxes no longer exist.
Gas is free but if you own an electric car, you get $100k from the gov't each year.
Everyone gets a new house every 10 years for free.
Everyone gets a new vehicle every 4 years for free.
There are no more wars ever.
There is no more cancer or ANY diseases that can kill people.
THERE ARE NO MORE HURRICANES OR ANY NATURAL DISASTERS EVER IN THE US. (NO was also said to this, wow)
There is no medical cost for anything ever for anyone.
Everyone goes to college for free.

People still said they wouldn't vote for Trump.

TDS

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Those are the people, as you noted, who have TDS. However, I think there are a lot of people in the middle (I suspect many of which are suburban women) who might find Trump good enough on paper, but who don't want to vote for him because of his personality. This is where the meme was born in which people would be saying "but those mean tweets" while some huge catastrophe unfolds as a result of Biden being in office. So yes, there is a hardened group on the left that would never vote for Trump, but I think a lot of people in the middle very well might.

reply

[–] Jinx (3721) 2 months ago

Where is the evidence that you did this?

reply

[–] Ranb (9595) 2 months ago

Who is foolish enough to believe that there could be any possible guarantee of that stuff happening? Wouldn't any person be an acceptable person for the job of president if they could make that list of things a reality?

Why not make up a list of things that Trump wants and see if people are willing to vote for him for those reasons. Trump wants additional restrictions on our 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. The president is supposed to protect our rights, not further erode them.

reply

[–] RockAway (1601) 2 months ago

Right?! This is just a desperate claim to justify their own beliefs.

reply

[–] BicD (161) 2 months ago

It's just a scenario to see if you could put aside your hatred for a person for the betterment of the Country. So I will ask you. If it was GUARANTEED that the following would happen, would you vote for Trump?

Violent crime in the US is non existent. In fact there is no crime.
There is no such thing as unemployment. Everyone has a job.
There is no inflation. Everyone is rich.
Border crossing is legal so everyone can come on in.
There is zero deficit.
Taxes no longer exist.
Gas is free but if you own an electric car, you get $100k from the gov't each year.
Everyone gets a new house every 10 years for free.
Everyone gets a new vehicle every 4 years for free.
There are no more wars ever.
There is no more cancer or ANY diseases that can kill people.
THERE ARE NO MORE HURRICANES OR ANY NATURAL DISASTERS EVER IN THE US. (NO was also said to this, wow)
There is no medical cost for anything ever for anyone.
Everyone goes to college for free.

Would you vote for Trump if all of this was guaranteed ?

I'll bet you just can't say yes.

reply

[–] Ranb (9595) 2 months ago

If I actually thought Trump was an effective leader, then he would get my vote. But he is trash.

There is no need to put forth your fantastical list of things that are not ever going to happen to see what it would take for me to vote for Trump. All Trump has to do is stop acting like a mad man.

reply

[–] BKB (9877) 2 months ago

I mean, Joy Behar is begging, BEGGING people to just vote Democrat this one time to get Trump out.. No shit

https://www.foxnews.com/media/view-co-host-joy-behar-begs-republicans-vote-democratic-party-just-one-time?dicbo=v2-pUVarGl

"The View" co-host Joy Behar urged Republican voters to put aside their party affiliation and vote for the Democratic Party just this one time to get rid of former President Trump.

Behar made the appeal during a conversation about former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney recently endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy, asking other Republicans to join her in voting against Trump this election cycle.

"Just do it this one time. Do it this one time. Vote for the Democrat to save the country," she said.

https://giphy.com/gifs/moodman-SqflD5OvHoWILB7qWm

reply

[–] RockAway (1601) 2 months ago

There have been threads on this very board begging people to vote for Trump, begging!

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Begging? like when you and the hivemind are constantly begging for evidence and sources?

reply

[–] RockAway (1601) 2 months ago

You are the only person I’ve ever met that was brave enough to admit that they have no evidence and think that it’s absurd to want it.

BraVO

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Evidence is futile for the hivemind; for example, look near the bottom of this post where I threw a bone at the other NPC and he still denied and rejected it. That's confirmation that no amount of evidence will make any difference.

Oh and btw, I don't beg and nag others for it since I'm capable of finding it, even when the hivemind makes idiotic claims without sources.

Not everyone is a child that requires spoon-feeding.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 months ago

They've been thoroughly captured by a cult created by the ruling elite. My favorite is when they act as though they're smarter than people who see through the bullshit (we've got quite a few of those robots on this site).

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) 2 months ago

Trump never conceded the 2020 election that he knew he lost, and then tried to steal it back.
Thats a deal breaker for the sane

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Yet he stepped away on January 20 and Joe Biden was sworn in.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 2 months ago

Either that or pull his fat ass outta there and throw him in jail!

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Do you realize that Democrats lost in 2016 and then were able to weaponize the justice system to strike back at him?

Should that be a "deal breaker" when considering Democratic candidates?

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) 2 months ago

Except it’s not true.
Watch the trials in 2025.
Trump was, and will always be a criminal

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Not true? Democrats went after him with investigations by the FBI, Congress, and Special Counsel, and STILL didn't find that he conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 election. They tried to disrupt his time in office by holding him up (and they actually succeeded in that). In the end, though, it came to nothing.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) 2 months ago

Watch the trials

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

What "trials"?

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

You’re unaware?
How is that so?

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

You talking about the trials that were pushed back? Either (most likely) Trump is elected, and any trials get postponed for years, or Trump loses the election, and the trials will be largely meaningless for the left.

The left needed to stop Trump *before* he got this far. They've done everything they could to get in his way, to obstruct his last presidency, and they still faltered. Imagine if only the left had spent as much determination in helping the American people as they spent on going after Trump.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

He broke laws and there will be trials, and we will all see the evidence after Trump loses . No one is above the law

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

So that's what you think this is, huh? Are you really passionately concerned about some victimless real estate issue in New York that might not be resolved until, oh, 2029 or so?

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

And GEorgia, District of Columbia and Florida. He’ll be in court for years after MAGA deserts him. It’s all here -https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

But as I already said, going after him *after* he's served his second time will be mostly meaningless for the left. He's not running for president again, so any prosecution of Trump when he's done (and in his 80s) will do no good for the left, and will only come across as partisan persecution of a political figure.

In other words, not only will this be fruitless for the left, but it will make the left look bad, and help the right going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic brass realize it's a mistake and simply let Trump be.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

This has nothing to do with the left or Democrats. It has to do with being held accountable for breaking laws. He’s only running to stay out of court. Do you really think he wants to be Prez again? Look at him, lusten to him. He’s too old & demented

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

And so, like I asked before: are you really passionately concerned about some victimless real estate issue in New York that might not be resolved until, oh, 2029 or so?

If so, that's amazing.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

You’re dense if you’re not aware of all the trials

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

Yeah, I aware there are others, but that's beside the point.

This isn't going the be the win you think it will be.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) a month ago

Everyone needs to be held accountable if they commit crimes. Do you agree?

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

Yes, but I also don't think people should be selectively prosecuted for political reasons.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 2 months ago

> Yet he stepped away on January 20 and Joe Biden was sworn in.

So you think if he didnt' step away he would be president now?
Irrelevant if Trump thinks he won. Only proves he is a lying psychopath!

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18045) 2 months ago

Even at 60,000 feet, Trump is a great President and will be a great President once again. Unless China or Iran hijacks the election.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5827) 2 months ago

Donald Trump bragged Friday about winning the support of a powerful Wall Street leader — just minutes before the supposed backer debunked his claim.

Trump went on his Truth Social platform, claiming JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has endorsed him for president.

“New: Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has endorsed Trump for President." the post claimed, alongside a red flashing light emoji.

Just 20 minutes later, his claim was smashed.

“Jamie Dimon has not endorsed anyone. He has not endorsed a candidate,” Joe Evangelisti, a spokesman for the CEO told CNBC.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

The mind controlling and brainwashing power of the MSM is too much for them to block. Only a few strong willed and strong minded have been able to break away from their trance.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

Considering Trump is a dedicated Fox News watcher, I'm guessing he's not one of them lol

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

FOX may be "controlled opposition" but they're still the opposition to the lying fake news.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

Wait, so is Trump controlled opposition or just stupid?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Neither.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

Then why does he keep getting brainwashed by Fox News and repeating everything he watches off of TV like one of the "brainwashed" people you claim to be against.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

He's not, 98% of what comes from FOX is truth; they may occasionally get something wrong by trying to be quick at covering a story but at least they correct it within hours.

The leftoid media lies 98% of the time and never correct anything.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

Occasionally? They had the second largest defamation pay out in history because they lied to the public.

There is plenty of proof including their own texts that they lied about the 2020 election in offer to lie to the public. Does this not concern you?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

But they didn't get it wrong, the election was stolen; besides, they called the election early (for Joe).

The $800 million was an internal payoff; FOX called the election early which proves and confirms that it was a payoff.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1920) 2 months ago

Just stop, you’re embarrassing your family

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2039) a month ago

LOL!

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 2 months ago

What his developments? Like when he wanted to withhold emergency aid to Puerto Rico because he thought they were foreigners or from California wildfire victims because they didn't vote for him?

Like when he packed the federal court system with judges who think corporations have more rights than people?

Or when he released 10,000 Taliban fighters so they could kill US troops while we were leaving?

Like when he emptied our diplomatic corps so that we have nobody in foreign countries during a time of extreme tensions?

Like when he rolled back Environmental protections?

Like when he sold our misfire Eastern policy in exchange for $2 billion from the Saudis?

Like when he caused confusing and doubt during the pandemic and discouraged people from taking precautions which led to a higher deadly rate here than in other countries.

Like when he refused to acceot the results of an election and acted to illegally overturn the results to stay in power?

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Your claim that Trump "packed the federal court system" simply means "Trump chose federal judges", which is what EVERY PRESIDENT DOES.

You claimed he "rolled back environmental protections". Were these "protections" unnecessary? Did they cause undo burdens? Merely saying something scary without context means little.

Trump caused "confusion and doubt during the pandemic"? What in the world? Do you realize that Biden had people FIRED for refusing to receive unnecessary injections? That seems like a vastly greater issue than anything Trump did.

So no, I don't buy what you're selling.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 2 months ago

You chose to concentrate on the word "packed" and ignored the type of judge that he he packed the courts with. I assume you agree with my characterization of those judges. And while it is a president's right to pick judges with the advise and consent of the senate, in think it is important to consider who the president will put in the judiciary.

Regarding Environmental protections, yes they are important.

You also did not refute my statement that Trump caused confusion and doubt that caused the pandemic to be worse in this country than in others. That is also noted.

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

I concentrated on that sentence because it means nothing. As I stated, every president picks his own judges, yet you're acting as if Trump did something corrupt and sinister. The term "court packing" is actually something borderline corrupt, so choosing to use the word "packed" is a way of scare-mongering. I'm not saying you did this intentionally, as you may have just been repeating Democratic propaganda that you have heard.

You glossed over the environmental claims.

Your statement that "Trump caused confusion and doubt" is an opinion, and I cannot refute an opinion. At the same time, opinions are rather meaningless. So if I did not refute your opinion, that is because you are entitled to it, even if it is wrong or misleading in an objective sense.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 2 months ago

My emphasis was on the types of judges Trump picked. If you can't read what I wrote then I have no use for you.

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Fair enough. You wrote, "Like when he packed the federal court system with judges who think corporations have more rights than people".

But is this even true? Who knows? It's completely subjective and lacks any evidence whatsoever.

It looks like you're just putting out talking points.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

It looks like you're just putting out talking points.

That's precisely what he's doing, regurgitating anti-Trump propaganda.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 2 months ago

You can read this and let me know what you disagree with.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/think_tank/quick-take-corporate-interests-at-the-supreme-court-2023-2024-term/

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

The first thing to look at is the angle of the website you're using. A simple review of the organization that you are using shows this:

The Constitutional Accountability Center envisions a future in which judges, policymakers, academics, advocates, and the public understand the Constitution, in its most vital respects, to be a progressive document...

The Constitutional Accountability Center is dedicated to fulfilling the inherently progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values.

...we particularly encourage people who identify as Black, Indigenous, Latino/Latina or Latinx, Asian American or Pacific Islander, and from other underrepresented communities to join us.

In other words, you gave me a source that has a bias and which admits to having a particular point of view.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 2 months ago

Or you could read it and try to refute it. But you probably cannot.

reply

[–] Phids (773) 2 months ago

Ok...what about it? Fighting back against the administrative state actually seems like a *good* thing. I don't know if you're familiar with administrative law or executive agencies, but these agencies are quite powerful, and I can easily see how they can be accused of overreach. The administrative state didn't exist for all of American history, and I believe it has ballooned in power over the past several decades or so.

So back to my original point - Trump's justice picks were pretty good.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) a month ago

If you look at it without your MAGA glasses on, what you refer to the "administrative state" consists of the professionals and experts in each area that the government is involved in. The rules put in place are one of the things that protect us from the whims and capriciousness of a Chief Executive. It is helps separates our republic from a monarchy or a dictatorship.

reply

[–] Phids (773) a month ago

I see that you're setting aside the constitutional idea of separation of powers. Did you know that executive agencies are quite powerful and have the ability to create and enforce regulations, as well as administer punishments for violators? But as we all know, these agencies are not part of the legislative or judicial branches. Our country wasn't always run like this, though.

But I digress. We're giving our opinions on this issue, which is a sidebar. The larger point is that Trump put some good justices on the court.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) a month ago

Justices who believe the President is above the law?

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

This guy won't address the fake elector coup. He wants you to remain ignorant, disengaged and uninformed. He doesn't want you to read about any of the cases, watch any of the video evidence or see any proof. Just ignore it all for some vague plan he won't elaborate on.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Are you still ranting about the alternate electors that the fake media relabeled as fake electors?

Again: Alternate electors is not illegal, they've been used by both parties since the 60s.

Podesta had plans documented to use alternate electors to clear a Trump win, but they didn't use them due to all their election rigging.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

I can't wait for the source on this. Why do you just keep repeating lies you read on Reddit? Do some actual research.

It's funny too because you're just admitting that it's "okay" to subvert the will of the people as long as you feel its a valid legal loophole. It's repulsive and disqualifying in any other context.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Reddit? that's a leftoid platform.

Why do you refuse to read the Transition Integrity Project 2020 simulation that ensured a Biden presidency even if Trump won the election, openly plotting sending a separate elector slates. -- the same thing the DOJ indicted Trump electors for considering doing.

In case you're actually an ignorant, I will throw you a bone just this once. Go fetch:

"Game Three: Clear Trump Win"

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

You're dodging. TIP 2020 had nothing to do with Biden. Biden already made it clear several times that he would've conceded if he lost.

Trump is the only one who refused to do so and was a part of the conspiracy himself. Also your cope has nothing comparable to forcing the vice president to pick electors that he wants.

Just stop. Say it's bad. Both are bad and Trump being a part of the conspiracy meant he tried to end democracy.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Oh, so you're not just willfully ignorant, but a shill and a denialist; that explains the gaslighting.

Anyone that read the TIP 2020, knows it has everything to do with Biden and their plans for an alternate slate of electors in case their rigging against Trump failed.

Thanks for confirming and reminding me that even when irrefutable proof is there, shills like you will still reject and deny it.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1226) 2 months ago

Give an example.

reply