Republicans might have already lost 2024

Agreed and hope he does not go off on the I really won tangent. I actually would be surprised to see him running in four years.

 

It was geographically based only AFTER the outcry when he made the ban on muslims.

Yeah, will unspin this:
Yes, every country banned, not one exported a terrorist to America, and the ones that weren't banned, Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Trump had properties in two of them, noting that all of the 9/11 pilots were from Saudi Arabia, so if any country should have been banned, it would be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the brains behind 9/11, who was from there) and Turkey ( supports Terrorism), but, oh, that darn hotel he's got Saudi Arabia and Turkey, so nope, they are allowed.

He said Mexico is sending rapists, though SOME aren't, he presumes.

Asserting that a majority of Mexicans are rapists is racist.

So, what, you want to argue that isn't what he meant? He didn't mean a majority, even though that is what he said?

Now, you can argue this and that, but that IS what he said. See, a president's words matter. If he means something different, he needs to learn the fine art of saying what he means, 'the art of articulation' which, if he can't do that, he is unfit for office.

So, either Trump is:
1. A racist
2. Unfit
3. Both.

At the minimum, he is #2

Any president saying that about any country is unfit for office and maybe a racist.

Worse? Are you kidding me. Did Biden ever brag about grabbing women by the *****? I mean, you want the sleaze bag inventory, which will occupy all 16000 characters allowed on this forum, of what Trump has said?

Give me a ****ing break.

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump is a racist or unfit, at the minimum ( i didn't even mention the vast inventory of sleezy things he has said, hence 'overwhelming'), and you are calling Biden a racist, where the evidence is underwhelming (which you are merely latching onto because it fits a right wing agenda)?

In my view, the argument goes more towards fitness for office than racism.

I'm sorry, sir, but If you can't see how OBVIOUS that is, you have no credibility.

 

The opposite is true. It's religious based.

 

since you 100% dismissed the racist comments by Biden, I can't take you seriously. "underwhelming" ? there is VIDEO of him saying these things but you won't see that on your phony news sources. You just proved your extreme hypocrisy, please stop wasting my time as I can no longer take you seriously
Thank you

 

You can't prove that. The legislation did not say "Only applies to Muslims in these regions"
Sorry but here won't be any unchecked SPIN in my threads.

 

'I'm calling for a total shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States'

Although the first and second iterations of the Muslim ban were struck down by federal judges who said it amounted to religious discrimination against Muslims, the Supreme Court upheld the third version (after it was modified) of the policy in June 2018.
https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/5-things-to-know-about-muslim-ban

 

If it was geography based why wasn’t Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt on the list???

 

it wasn't just muslim majority countries, please do your research
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-countries-map/

 

They are underwhelming, they aren't nice, but a couple of bad statements in man's life doesn't make him a racist, and Biden is fit for the office.

One can make a racist tinged statement in one's life, that doesn't make the man a racist.

But, Trump's sleaze bag statements span a 30 year period which you IGNORE.

You are dismissed.

And you have the gall to even use 'hypocrisy' in a sentence, AS IF you know what the word means, and clearly, you do not.

You're not wasting MY time. You are wasting YOUR time.

 

Nice dodge. How about answering my question?

“Donald Trump made a drastic call on Monday for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

 

Oh you mean how corrupt Trump was with his impeachable collusion with the Ruskies or with his impeachable phone call with the Ukranian president. I'm glad you mentioned that word 'CORRUPT' when applying it to Trump, for I had almost forgotten just how corrupt Trump was.

And I guess Trump was self serving as potus when he gave America the greatest economy in America's history before the China virus hit our borders. Yeah, I would say all those minority groups of people who saw their pay increase, their jobs come back, their unemployment rates drop to record levels also viewed Trump as a self serving buffoon. And Trump did all those great things for the American people while dealing with the two crying babies pictured in my avatar as they attacked him from day one while putting America and the successful Trump through a nightmare of treasonous activity by those lefties.

 

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

 

I am relieved to hear that. Perhaps we need a sarcasm font!

 

It took three tries for the admin to sanitize and re-write the Muslim ban in such a way as to disguise its intent enough for the SC to accept it. Something our conservative friend clearly doesn't want to admit.

 

Sasse? No chance.

But I'm hesitant about Trump running again. As much as I enjoyed his Presidency, there seems no point in him trying to make a comeback if he's going to bring Kushner and Ivanka back to the White House. Their "advice" did much to sabotage Trump's goals and why would I want to go through that again?

Plus, Trump will be as old as Biden is now, and that's not looking so great.

 

I've already expressed my opinion of CPAC elsewhere on this forum, but basically it's a Grift-PAC that is more or less controlled opposition. The Schlapps pretend they love Trump but oppose him on his two biggest issues, trade and immigration.

Looking forward to Trump's speech though.

 

It isn't a Muslim ban if the legislation doesn't say (let everyone in from these countries EXCEPT for Muslims)
Also there were non-muslim countries on the ban as well (something our liberal friend clearly doesn't want to admit)
Even if Trump said those words, which you quoted and I believe you as i know you are usually a fact checker, it still cannot be proven that it was a ban on Muslims

 

Let's take one of the run of the mill, every day, multiple acts of unprecedented corruption Don engaged in while prez.

Why Is Trump’s Inspector General Purge Not a National Scandal?

If, three years ago, President Trump had removed two inspectors general from their posts within a week of each other for overtly self-interested reasons—as he has done over the past few days—it would have been a big scandal. Presidents don’t just fire inspectors general for doing their jobs, after all. And presidents who agree to have an oversight board composed of inspectors general don’t typically sack one of them to prevent him from leading the board’s monitoring of trillions of dollars of congressionally appropriated money.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-trumps-inspector-general-purge-not-national-scandal

Did you enjoy this overt corruption because Don "owned the libs?" Do me a favor. At least read the first 5-6 paragraphs if you can handle that much truth.

 

Who do you see it going well for? Idk seems like he is still our best option.

 

It doesnt look like the husband is even in the picture. That's liberal values for you.

 

He will announce, he cannot win if Joe or any competent man runs for the Dems.

 

Here's a quiz. Which of these countries named in the first iteration of the EO is not majority Muslim? Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syrian, Sudan, and Yemen. (hint; they all are majority Muslim)
Like I said, the legislation was sanitized (by adding two non-Muslim majority countries) after twice being rejected by lower courts to make it palatable for the SC to pass the Muslim ban.

 

for what? For hate? For conflict?

 

The media will still do that no matter who we vote for.

 

I know it sounds shallow, but someone NOT WHITE.
I'm not thinking about 2024, I'm thinking beyond that.
If republicans had a minority nominee, of ANY race but white (no, ted Cruz is still too white), then this would absolutely CRUSH the left (or prop them up even higher)
Hear me out:
Lets say they primary a minority person and they win.
Lets say the democrats have another OLD WHITE MAN (they seem to love that *see my sig*)
This will essentially prove if GOP voters are as racist as the left claims they are.
If they really are racist they will most likely vote for the WHITEST candidate instead of policy. If they aren't, they will still vote for the republican nominee.
This will either shut up the left once and for all on race baiting OR will prove their point!
Hear me out:
I work with many Black people every day and most of them have a "assume racism" wall up
I was just in a diversity meeting and this woman (not white) , was telling a story about how she got a new job and received a very warm welcome but, in her first big company meeting, she was the only NOT WHITE person and the rest, about 100 of them were white. She did not give any examples of discrimination, just that she felt uncomfortable in that setting (OK thats understandable)
But, at NO point were STATISTICS mentioned. You now, like how about out of the applicants, how many were black? They always leave stats like these out. It isn't a company's fault if low numbers of a certain ethnicity apply but to most minorities, they still see this as OFFENSIVE
I can't blame them. With the media drilling in their heads EVERY DAY that they are OPPRESSED, I really can't blame them for feeling this way
Hear me out:
Knowing all the above, yes, there will have to be SOME "pandering" to the minorities.
This will make them feel more comfortable with leaving the democrat plantation. In the END, its the POLICIES that matter. Who cares if those SAME policies are being dictated by a black or white person? Many black people care about this, and will continue too until we can squash this fake racism narrative
We take away their most powerful weapon, race baiting, we can shut them up about it and get them back to the job of POLICY. It might also crush them, but I don't really want them crushed, i think AT LEAST 2 parties are needed to keep checks and balances
A minority presidential conservative candidate is the left's BIGGEST NIGHTMARE
and if that happens, and it proves the GOP is really as racist as everyone says, oh well, then that's on them
90% of 13% of the population of the country always voting democrat is not good for the GOP