DONALD J. TRUMP & JD VANCE 2024

curmudgeoness said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

curmudgeoness said:

I just watched a few clips on The Bulwark's reaction to this interview.

That's some crazy sh!t. Every time I hear him talk I am reminded that he is completely nuts. Wow.

And he should step down?

We should be so lucky. This. Is. Amazing. Completely batshit crazy.

Johnny Abruzzo said:

curmudgeoness said:

Gern Blansten said:

The best part was when she confronted him about saying he would pardon the Jan 6th criminals and he went off on a tangent about people spray painting graffiti on some monuments recently. 

Total disaster but the magats love it.

"140 police officers were wounded"

"Yeah, but red paint was sprayed on limestone! What about that? You can't get that out!"

Donald Trump prefers limestone over the police.

cincybearcat said:

Trump has the emotional mental capacity of a .... maybe 6 year old?

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Merkin Baller said:

FiveBelow said:

Gern Blansten said:

FiveBelow said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4795119-jdvance-wife-white-supremacist-attacks/



she's not white but I love her....wow

I don’t see anything wrong with what he said:
”Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is,” he told host Megyn Kelly on her show Friday. “Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

Usha Vance has faced a slew of far-right attacks targeting her Indian heritage following her husband’s nomination to the Republican ticket. 

“Who is this guy, really? Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?” prominent white supremacist Nick Fuentes said of Vance

In the context of the article you linked, what’s wrong with what he said?

I pointed out what's wrong already...you are in full apologist mode. Dude said she's not white BUT I love her. The "BUT" suggests a "hey yeah she's not one of us but I love her" vibe.

The problem is you (probably intentionally, but I don’t know that for fact) misquoted him to make it sound worse.
You wrote “she's not white but I love her”

What he actually said “Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is. Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

He’s defending their relationship against white supremacists. Omitting the middle part and directly connecting the “she’s not white” to the “I love her”like you did changes the tone and meaning.

You’re taking someone in an interracial marriage and misquote them to make it sound like he’s racist. Seems ironic to me.

The word “but” doesn’t enter the person’s brain unless they’re validating what the critics said or they themselves think her race is a deficiency. 

Does this also apply to anyone whose go-to defense is “but trump, or but the republicans” any time someone breaks the cardinal sin of criticizing democrats around here? 

It depends doesn't it? If you have a problem with a "lie" a democrat told but you don't have a similar problem with a lie that tRump told then yeah...you're going to get comments about that.

I have a problem with anyone who lies or deceives, party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Criticizing one while giving a pass to the other simply because they suck less doesn't make sense to me. I see a lot of that around here.

Politicians have always played fast & loose with the truth; having said that, do you think the lies perpetrated by the GOP about our last presidential election and the attempt to get trump back in the White House is just politics as usual? 

In a sense, yes. Deploying tactics (whether honest or not) to retain/gain control is the goal of both parties. To the previously acceptable extent? No, not that I am aware of. Does this action absolve the democratic party of their hand in current political affairs? We’re talking about a duopoly here, one that breeds skepticism.

WTF? One half of the “duopoly” stormed the capitol, tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, regularly restricts voting rights and purges voter rolls, continues to make claims of widespread voter fraud and is already claiming if their candidate doesn’t win, the election is rigged, all while the head of their party and POTUS nominee brags to its base that in four years they won’t have to worry about voting again because it’ll be “fixed.”

What exactly do the Dems need to do to absolve themselves of “their hand in current political affairs?”

Where’s the calling out of Repubs for their malfeasance? Or are both sides of the duopoly the same?

Our duopoly has been around longer than the last 2 administrations, Hal. Much longer, and neither is anywhere close to batting 1.000. Take it up with one of the handful (maybe) who actually supports/defends the gop around here.

Geez, tell me something I don’t know. But why your outspokenness about Dems doing something to change the political climate and nary a peep regarding the other half of the duopoly? This is what I can’t stand about so called indies, the both sides can be criticized and yet they always criticize one side, usually Dems, and not the other, in a lame attempt at exhibiting an open mind or some kind of “balance.” Except they’re not open minded or balanced and generally lean repub, according to the polls anyway.

Im not asking you to defend the repubs, I’m asking you to be critical of both sides of the duopoly. Something I haven’t read you do. Who you voting for? Third party or sitting out?

Not sure I agree that my involvement here is outspoken. I choose this of all places to follow and occasionally voice my opinion. My “social media” sample size is this forum, so I couldn’t tell you who independents typically criticize more. If AMT was lacking the criticism republicans rightfully deserve, I can assure you, I would partake at a more respectable level. There is nothing I could add to the criticism of republicans that hasn’t already been said ad nauseam around here, so I feel no need to jump on the bandwagon. 

I’ve sat them all out. Until I feel my vote does more than support bending the knee to power brokers, I’ll likely continue to abstain. Far cry from the democracy it was intended to be. Hopefully this helps you better understand where I’m coming from.

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

FiveBelow said:

Merkin Baller said:

FiveBelow said:

Gern Blansten said:

FiveBelow said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4795119-jdvance-wife-white-supremacist-attacks/



she's not white but I love her....wow

I don’t see anything wrong with what he said:
”Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is,” he told host Megyn Kelly on her show Friday. “Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

Usha Vance has faced a slew of far-right attacks targeting her Indian heritage following her husband’s nomination to the Republican ticket. 

“Who is this guy, really? Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?” prominent white supremacist Nick Fuentes said of Vance

In the context of the article you linked, what’s wrong with what he said?

I pointed out what's wrong already...you are in full apologist mode. Dude said she's not white BUT I love her. The "BUT" suggests a "hey yeah she's not one of us but I love her" vibe.

The problem is you (probably intentionally, but I don’t know that for fact) misquoted him to make it sound worse.
You wrote “she's not white but I love her”

What he actually said “Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is. Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

He’s defending their relationship against white supremacists. Omitting the middle part and directly connecting the “she’s not white” to the “I love her”like you did changes the tone and meaning.

You’re taking someone in an interracial marriage and misquote them to make it sound like he’s racist. Seems ironic to me.

The word “but” doesn’t enter the person’s brain unless they’re validating what the critics said or they themselves think her race is a deficiency. 

Does this also apply to anyone whose go-to defense is “but trump, or but the republicans” any time someone breaks the cardinal sin of criticizing democrats around here? 

It depends doesn't it? If you have a problem with a "lie" a democrat told but you don't have a similar problem with a lie that tRump told then yeah...you're going to get comments about that.

I have a problem with anyone who lies or deceives, party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Criticizing one while giving a pass to the other simply because they suck less doesn't make sense to me. I see a lot of that around here.

Politicians have always played fast & loose with the truth; having said that, do you think the lies perpetrated by the GOP about our last presidential election and the attempt to get trump back in the White House is just politics as usual? 

In a sense, yes. Deploying tactics (whether honest or not) to retain/gain control is the goal of both parties. To the previously acceptable extent? No, not that I am aware of. Does this action absolve the democratic party of their hand in current political affairs? We’re talking about a duopoly here, one that breeds skepticism.

WTF? One half of the “duopoly” stormed the capitol, tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, regularly restricts voting rights and purges voter rolls, continues to make claims of widespread voter fraud and is already claiming if their candidate doesn’t win, the election is rigged, all while the head of their party and POTUS nominee brags to its base that in four years they won’t have to worry about voting again because it’ll be “fixed.”

What exactly do the Dems need to do to absolve themselves of “their hand in current political affairs?”

Where’s the calling out of Repubs for their malfeasance? Or are both sides of the duopoly the same?

Our duopoly has been around longer than the last 2 administrations, Hal. Much longer, and neither is anywhere close to batting 1.000. Take it up with one of the handful (maybe) who actually supports/defends the gop around here.

Geez, tell me something I don’t know. But why your outspokenness about Dems doing something to change the political climate and nary a peep regarding the other half of the duopoly? This is what I can’t stand about so called indies, the both sides can be criticized and yet they always criticize one side, usually Dems, and not the other, in a lame attempt at exhibiting an open mind or some kind of “balance.” Except they’re not open minded or balanced and generally lean repub, according to the polls anyway.

Im not asking you to defend the repubs, I’m asking you to be critical of both sides of the duopoly. Something I haven’t read you do. Who you voting for? Third party or sitting out?

Not sure I agree that my involvement here is outspoken. I choose this of all places to follow and occasionally voice my opinion. My “social media” sample size is this forum, so I couldn’t tell you who independents typically criticize more. If AMT was lacking the criticism republicans rightfully deserve, I can assure you, I would partake at a more respectable level. There is nothing I could add to the criticism of republicans that hasn’t already been said ad nauseam around here, so I feel no need to jump on the bandwagon. 

I’ve sat them all out. Until I feel my vote does more than support bending the knee to power brokers, I’ll likely continue to abstain. Far cry from the democracy it was intended to be. Hopefully this helps you better understand where I’m coming from.