Poll: Would Trump destroy the US-democracy?

[daley]

Did the Republican Party get Trumpified or did Trump get Republicanified? I think it's the latter. He's much older and less enthusiastic than he was in 2016. He focuses on the economy and moderate positions like inflation and fracking ("drill baby drill"). This is a Republican candidate. The Republican establishment accepts him now that he's been brought into the fold.

What I am getting from the media is that there are many prominent republicans who will vote for Kamala, e.g. this.
Is this just wishful thinking of the left media?

 

[noname223]

You didn't prove anything, especially regarding my logic. I told you I'm not diving into whether Trump thought his claims about 2020 were legitimate or not because I'm telling you it doesn't matter. It wasn't - and isn't - an issue for the purposes here. You are taking the easy way out by diverting the very simple main subject, which was never meant to be a debate!

This is why I - and others - avoid politics here. And it's not because you proved something with facts and logic. It's because I made a simple comment about this being an issue that has been visited before and then asked what counts as democracy being destroyed and I'm dragged into all this bs.

I like talking to you on here, and I'm rooting for you with your relationship stuff and your self-help group, but when it comes to politics . . . well, it's on me. I know better than to take the bait and respond.

If you are that annoyed by my political threads I really wonder why you still participate in them. Noone forces you to do that. And I am certainly not begging for it. I had many discussions with people on here that do not share my political views but they at least wanted to talk with me about it. And they did not respond that talking with me about politics is no fun.


We have our disagreements on politics and we see things pretty different. Political debates easily get heated and controversial. People get shit for their opinions that's usual in this business. If people shit on you for your political points well that's politics. I am not the only one who disagrees with the points you make.

 

[sugarb]

I mean, he didn't last time, right? the media made a big stink and some of his followers rioted at the capitol building but I don't think the republic is really in worse shape for it. He handed over the presidency on time and things have been business as usual since
If he gets elected again I just hope people don't froth every time he scratches his ass like in 2016-2020 lol I remember it felt like about 10% of the population completely lost their minds and couldn't think of anything else

 

[derpyderpins]

If you are that annoyed by my political threads I really wonder why you still participate in them.

Me, too. I avoid most of them but sometimes I can't help myself.

And I am certainly not begging for it.

You bumped the thread wanting more responses. I couldn't respond without asking my question.

We have our disagreements on politics and we see things pretty different. Political debates easily get heated and controversial. People get shit for their opinions that's usual in this business. If people shit on you for your political points well that's politics. I am not the only one who disagrees with the points you make.

I haven't really made any points. I don't even know where you think we disagree (fundamentally on policy, based on this thread.) I rarely actually give a political view on here, because I won't agree with either side entirely and this place is absolutely an echo chamber, and I haven't in this thread. I haven't said "so and so is a good/bad candidate." I haven't advocated for a policy. I asked a question and pointed one thing out: that this entire narrative has already played out once and I saw the outcome. And I regret it. My bad.

 

[noname223]

Me, too. I avoid most of them but sometimes I can't help myself.


You bumped the thread wanting more responses. I couldn't respond without asking my question.

I haven't really made any points. I don't even know where you think we disagree (fundamentally on policy, based on this thread.) I rarely actually give a political view on here, because I won't agree with either side entirely and this place is absolutely an echo chamber, and I haven't in this thread. I haven't said "so and so is a good/bad candidate." I haven't advocated for a policy. I asked a question and pointed one thing out: that this entire narrative has already played out once and I saw the outcome. And I regret it. My bad.

Always when I consider to reply to Iyou ask myself whether I do you a favor with that because you dislike to discuss politics with me. On the other hand others have criticized me for not replying enough to other posts in my threads. This is why I will still reply.
You like to play the devil's advocate for Trump. I don't actually know whether you support or vote for him. But you feed into his narrative. Here is an example:

He thought he won and still stepped down . . .

As I elaborated earlier this is not he truth. This feeds in into the fairytale of innocent Donald Trump who is the victim of the media and justice system. And many on here don't want that such ridiculous narratives take over. To a point I can understand to play the devil's advocate for someone as controversial as Donald Trump. But I get the feeling you are not impartial on facts. And this is where we disagree. I don't give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt as many other members on here. I think it would be naive to do so. In fact I think this would be pretty dangerous.

 

[derpyderpins]

Always when I consider to reply to Iyou ask myself whether I do you a favor with that because you dislike to discuss politics with me. On the other hand others have criticized me for not replying enough to other posts in my threads. This is why I will still reply.

I don't mind you replying. I would like us to be able to have discussions.

You like to play the devil's advocate for Trump. I don't actually know whether you support or vote for him.

It is purposeful that you don't know if I support any politician. I play devil's advocate for everybody, but as this forum is overwhelmingly on one side I'll inevitably play devil's advocate for the other more.

But you feed in ito his narrative. Here an example:

As I elaborated earlier this is not he truth. This feeds in into the fairytale of innocent Donald Trump who is the victim of the media and justice system. And many on here don't want that such ridiculous narratives take over. To a point I can understand to play the devil's advocate for someone as controversial as Donald Trump.

Saying he thinks he won the election is "feed[ing] a fairytail," "ridiculous narrative," and giving him the "benefit of the doubt"? I guess this is the surprising thing for me. I've just never encountered this notion that stating Trump challenged the election results but saying so in the wrong way was the equivalent of putting on a MAGA hat and driving through dixie firing my AR-15s in the air. I never in a million years would have thought I was making a controversial statement at all - nonetheless one that could offend people - by saying he thought he won the election. So, I guess I should apologize for that and withdraw that statement, because I try to avoid expressing views and didn't realize that was one.

So, please now read it as "he challenged the election - though I do not know if he really believed the challenges were legitimate." Because of course I don't and neither do you. I never know if any politician actually believes the shit they spew.

But I get the feeling you are not impartial on facts. And this is where we disagree.

Do you honest to god see yourself as being unbiased and impartial? Your posts frequently suggest otherwise.

 

[yellowjester]

Always when I consider to reply to Iyou ask myself whether I do you a favor with that because you dislike to discuss politics with me. On the other hand others have criticized me for not replying enough to other posts in my threads. This is why I will still reply.
You like to play the devil's advocate for Trump. I don't actually know whether you support or vote for him. But you feed into his narrative. Here is an example:

As I elaborated earlier this is not he truth. This feeds in into the fairytale of innocent Donald Trump who is the victim of the media and justice system. And many on here don't want that such ridiculous narratives take over. To a point I can understand to play the devil's advocate for someone as controversial as Donald Trump. But I get the feeling you are not impartial on facts. And this is where we disagree. I don't give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt as many other members on here. I think it would be naive to do so. In fact I think this would be pretty dangerous.

 

[noname223]

I don't mind you replying. I would like us to be able to have discussions.


It is purposeful that you don't know if I support any politician. I play devil's advocate for everybody, but as this forum is overwhelmingly on one side I'll inevitably play devil's advocate for the other more.


Saying he thinks he won the election is "feed[ing] a fairytail," "ridiculous narrative," and giving him the "benefit of the doubt"? I guess this is the surprising thing for me. I've just never encountered this notion that stating Trump challenged the election results but saying so in the wrong way was the equivalent of putting on a MAGA hat and driving through dixie firing my AR-15s in the air. I never in a million years would have thought I was making a controversial statement at all - nonetheless one that could offend people - by saying he thought he won the election. So, I guess I should apologize for that and withdraw that statement, because I try to avoid expressing views and didn't realize that was one.

So, please now read it as "he challenged the election - though I do not know if he really believed the challenges were legitimate." Because of course I don't and neither do you. I never know if any politician actually believes the shit they spew.


Do you honest to god see yourself as being unbiased and impartial? Your posts frequently suggest otherwise.

I never insinuated the "notion that stating Trump challenged the election results but saying so in the wrong way was the equivalent of putting on a MAGA hat and driving through dixie firing my AR-15s in the air. " In fact I suggested the opposite. Feeding into someone's narrative can be very subtle but even more dangerous because it is less obvious and can be used from bad actors as a tool to steer discussions without getting recognized. I don't pretend you were a bad actor as I said I don't know that. But your behavior helps for Trump narratives to thrive. And there are many useful idiots for Trump who do that.

It is very tedious to elaborate on all claims that I spotted as feeding into Trumps narrative. Some are more obvious some are harder to spot. You can of course debate on all single one of them. The most obvious was "He thought he won and still stepped down . . . " and this is why I highlighted it. You act like you accidentally used the wrong wording. But if we take all posts on here one can easily see which narrative you favor and nurish. You act more like a lawyer defending one's own mandate who never wants to acknowledge one single mistake of his client. This is not the way for finding the truth.

I will very shortly comment on some passages which I consider narrative humping.

What Supreme Court ruling, exactly? It's the same number of conservative justices as before.

The same number of conservatives has nothing to do with giving Trump full immunity for presidential acts.

Trump pushed for review and recount and audit and kept pushing for that, but when the time came he left, unless you have some info I've never seen on him trying to take control but being rejected by the military.

I think it is a far point he never pushed taking control of the military. But he pushed Pence not to certify an election despite the fact he knew to this point he lost. As I said Trump would not have left if it would have been possible for him. Not as you insinuate he just lawfully tried to challenge the results. It was a campaign full of knowing lies. As I pointed out with the proof of the fake electors plot Trump is willing to commit crimes to stay in power. They purposely lied in these cases to turn an election they were aware they lost. This is undermining democracy. It is very well documented what they tried. I certainly won't give such people the benefit of the doubt whether they leave the office next time. Maybe he will leave office but the risk is too high.

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't see the materiality of whether he believed his challenges to the election were legitimate. The point is he did challenge the election, lost the challanges, and ultimately left office.

He knew he lost. He conceded it in private conversation as I proved earlier (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ew-footage-evidence-trump-knew-lost-rcna52176). It was no crime to challenge the results. But lying on purpose in this instance in a systemic way, for a long time, with all his clowns in media who also lie on purpose for this narrative to flourish. This is eroding democracy. And this what this thread is about.

Cool, that's how courts and challenges to elections should work.

Elections should not work that the loser of the election is not acknowledging the results. He still pretends he won that election 2020 to this day despite losing all these court cases. Elections should not work that the loser of elections plan an intricate fake electors plot to remain in office. Not all of his acts were illegal but it is damaging democracy and elections. The whole red mirage scenario. Everything can be read in detail. It was all planned all along. You can also read Project 2025. Nobody can pretend we would not have been warned.

I still don't get why that matters: if he believed his challenges to the election or not. I'm here making a claim about him challenging the election and leaving office and you're latching onto this irrelevant wording. The point is that he made the challenges and left

I think I already elaborated on that.

 

[derpyderpins]

I never insinuated the "notion that stating Trump challenged the election results but saying so in the wrong way was the equivalent of putting on a MAGA hat and driving through dixie firing my AR-15s in the air. " In fact I suggested the opposite.

You suggested the opposite? The opposite of saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a huge supporter. . . what would that be? You suggested that saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a big Kamala supporter?

Feeding into someone's narrative can be very subtle but even more dangerous because it is less obvious and can be used from bad actors as a tool to steer discussions without getting recongized. I don't pretend you were a bad actor as I said I don't know that. But your behavior helps for Trump narratives to thrive. And there are many useful idiots for Trump who do that.

. . . sigh. Oh boy we brought out calling me a 'useful idiot.'

It is very tedious to elaborate on all claims that I spotted as feeing into Trumps narrative. Some are more obvious some are not hard to spot. You can of course debate on all single one of them. The most obvious was "He thought he won and still stepped down . . . " and this is why I highlighted it. You act like you accidentally used the wrong wording.

No, I'm acting like I didn't consider that wording at all. Trying to examine his state of mind, to me, is a useless endeavor I would never waste time on.

But if we take all posts on her one can easily see which narrative you favor and nurish.

You act more like a lawyer defending one's own mandate who never wants to acknowledge one single mistake of his client. This is not the way for finding the truth.

I will very shortly comment on some passages which I consider narrative humping.

Really. . . "narrative humping?"

The same number of conservatives has nothing to do with giving Trump full immunity for presidential acts.

Okay, you answered the question. You think the immunity case means he's allowed to seize power, and that he didn't do that before because he needed the supreme court's permission first. I get that now. I thought you meant how the Supreme Court shot down challenges to the election, and I was pointing out that they won't have extra votes.

I think it is a far point he never pushed taking control of the military. But he pushed Pence not to certify an election despite the fact he knew to this point he lost. As I said Trump would not have left if it would have been possible for him. Not as you insinuate he just lawfully tried to challenge the results.

It doesn't, in any way, change my point. Saying he did everything possible and still couldn't stay in re-enforces my initial skepticism of the idea that democracy will end. Which, this is crazy to think about now, was the original topic.

It was a campaign full of knowing lies. As I pointed out with the proof of the fake electors plot Trump is willing to commit crimes to stay in power. They purposely lied in these cases to turn an election they were aware they lost. This is undermining democracy. It is very well documented what they tried. I certainly won't give such people the benefit of the doubt whether they leave the office next time. Maybe he will leave office but the risk is too high.

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He knew he lost. He conceded it in private conversation as I proved earlier (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ew-footage-evidence-trump-knew-lost-rcna52176). It was no crime to challenge the results. But lying on purpose in this instance in a systemic way, for a long time, with all his clowns in media who also lie on purpose for this narrative to flourish. This is eroding democracy. And this what this thread is about.

Ugh... why can't I show some fucking restraint.

You're relying on hearsay. You did not prove anything. Plus he talks like a moron so even if those people are being truthful with what they heard, him saying "can you believe I lost" could be his way of saying "I don't believe that I lost, it must have been rigged." Hell, I'd believe he flip-flopped day-to-day on what he thought. There is no proof you can give on this. The fact that you've latched onto a wikipedia page and NBC article as absolute truth is telling to say the least. I skimmed through the wiki article and I don't know what part you want me to focus on, I'm not reading the whole damn thing.

I guess I am an idiot because I realize there's nothing I can say now to stop the inevitable posting of more sources reporting on those secondhand hearsay sources as additional "proof," when this point doesn't matter. This is not a subject worth hanging your hat on. It can only discredit you, that you take this secondhand source as absolute fact. If he was trying to put forth fake electors to change the results, you need to focus on that. If you focus on whether he thought his effort to put forth fake electors was good and righteous or if he was solely insidious, you're just opening yourself up to being hit on that fact, which should be irrelevant.

Metaphor to illustrate the point. In some states there is a statute for "Felony Murder," meaning if I am committing a felony and someone dies, I am found to have committed murder. The prosecutor does not have to show that I intended for that person to die. But, if they spend a whole bunch of time arguing to the jury that I meant for that person to die, the jury may now get back there to deliberate and start talking about my intent. They may decide I didn't intend to and come back with a not guilty, even thought that's the wrong outcome based on the law. You shouldn't be introducing a potential weakness, and giving a shit whether Trump believed his own challenges to the election were valid is doing just that.

Elections should not work that the loser of the election is not acknowledging the results. He still pretends he won that election 2020 to this day despite losing all these court cases.

I just disagree. The sign of elections being strong is the ability to question them. As shown elsewhere here, Hillary still thinks 2016 was "stolen" from her, thinking the results were somehow not what they should have been without the stealing, and I have no problem with that.

Elections should not work that the loser of eleciotns plan an intricate fake electors plot to remain in office.

Sure, total agreement. There should be no intricate fake electors plots.

You can also read Project 2025. Nobody can pretend we would not have been warned.

Please source me where Project 2025 is part of Trump's campaign. Not other people, source me where the Trump campaign or Trump himself has endorsed it. All I've seen is him say he's unaffiliated, repeatedly.

Have you ever considered that I just want better arguments to be made? There are so, so many good ways to rightfully criticize Donald Trump. Saying "Project 2025!" at all is just showing that you are equally willing to spread something that's just wrong on its face as his supporters are. It's the same as Trump supporters saying Kamala will confiscate all the guns or implement communism or allow abortions after birth or whatever (and if those people - who do exist - were here, I'd be devil's advocating them, too). I assume you're ready to respond, "you can't believe what he says when he says he's not affiliated with Project 2025." That's exactly what they would say about her, "you can't believe her when she says she won't take all the guns." Maybe you'll say someone who is connected to him through this and that is connected to this person who is connected to project 2025, but I'm sure someone Kamala is connected to is in favor of that bs the MAGA folks throw out there. None of it is helpful and it makes everyone's stances look weak.


I hate myself so much.

 

[noname223]

You suggested the opposite? The opposite of saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a huge supporter. . . what would that be? You suggested that saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a big Kamala supporter?


. . . sigh. Oh boy we brought out calling me a 'useful idiot.'

No, I'm acting like I didn't consider that wording at all. Trying to examine his state of mind, to me, is a useless endeavor I would never waste time on.



Really. . . "narrative humping?"

Okay, you answered the question. You think the immunity case means he's allowed to seize power, and that he didn't do that before because he needed the supreme court's permission first. I get that now. I thought you meant how the Supreme Court shot down challenges to the election, and I was pointing out that they won't have extra votes.

It doesn't, in any way, change my point. Saying he did everything possible and still couldn't stay in re-enforces my initial skepticism of the idea that democracy will end. Which, this is crazy to think about now, was the original topic.


Ugh... why can't I show some fucking restraint.

You're relying on hearsay. You did not prove anything. Plus he talks like a moron so even if those people are being truthful with what they heard, him saying "can you believe I lost" could be his way of saying "I don't believe that I lost, it must have been rigged." Hell, I'd believe he flip-flopped day-to-day on what he thought. There is no proof you can give on this. The fact that you've latched onto a wikipedia page and NBC article as absolute truth is telling to say the least. I skimmed through the wiki article and I don't know what part you want me to focus on, I'm not reading the whole damn thing.

I guess I am an idiot because I realize there's nothing I can say now to stop the inevitable posting of more sources reporting on those secondhand hearsay sources as additional "proof," when this point doesn't matter. This is not a subject worth hanging your hat on. It can only discredit you, that you take this secondhand source as absolute fact. If he was trying to put forth fake electors to change the results, you need to focus on that. If you focus on whether he thought his effort to put forth fake electors was good and righteous or if he was solely insidious, you're just opening yourself up to being hit on that fact, which should be irrelevant.

Metaphor to illustrate the point. In some states there is a statute for "Felony Murder," meaning if I am committing a felony and someone dies, I am found to have committed murder. The prosecutor does not have to show that I intended for that person to die. But, if they spend a whole bunch of time arguing to the jury that I meant for that person to die, the jury may now get back there to deliberate and start talking about my intent. They may decide I didn't intend to and come back with a not guilty, even thought that's the wrong outcome based on the law. You shouldn't be introducing a potential weakness, and giving a shit whether Trump believed his own challenges to the election were valid is doing just that.

I just disagree. The sign of elections being strong is the ability to question them. As shown elsewhere here, Hillary still thinks 2016 was "stolen" from her, thinking the results were somehow not what they should have been without the stealing, and I have no problem with that.


Sure, total agreement. There should be no intricate fake electors plots.


Please source me where Project 2025 is part of Trump's campaign. Not other people, source me where the Trump campaign or Trump himself has endorsed it. All I've seen is him say he's unaffiliated, repeatedly.

Have you ever considered that I just want better arguments to be made? There are so, so many good ways to rightfully criticize Donald Trump. Saying "Project 2025!" at all is just showing that you are equally willing to spread something that's just wrong on its face as his supporters are. It's the same as Trump supporters saying Kamala will confiscate all the guns or implement communism or allow abortions after birth or whatever (and if those people - who do exist - were here, I'd be devil's advocating them, too). I assume you're ready to respond, "you can't believe what he says when he says he's not affiliated with Project 2025." That's exactly what they would say about her, "you can't believe her when she says she won't take all the guns." Maybe you'll say someone who is connected to him through this and that is connected to this person who is connected to project 2025, but I'm sure someone Kamala is connected to is in favor of that bs the MAGA folks throw out there. None of it is helpful and it makes everyone's stances look weak.


I hate myself so much.

I think I will reply tomorrow. Working in a thread in off-topic this evening.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

No matter who wins, opposers will still have the freedom to cry and whine about it all they want.

 

[noname223]

You suggested the opposite? The opposite of saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a huge supporter. . . what would that be? You suggested that saying he thought he won is the equivalent of being a big Kamala supporter?

No. I did not equate being a huge Trump supporter with a MAGA hat with someone who subtly feeds in into Trump's narrative. These two things are not equivalent in my opinion.

No, I'm acting like I didn't consider that wording at all. Trying to examine his state of mind, to me, is a useless endeavor I would never waste time on.

Intentions matter. These are not speculations the January 6th hearings shed a light on it. It is all documented in detail. For everyone free to read.

I just disagree. The sign of elections being strong is the ability to question them. As shown elsewhere here, Hillary still thinks 2016 was "stolen" from her, thinking the results were somehow not what they should have been without the stealing, and I have no problem with that.

Well you just examined the mind of Hillary and used it as an argument. I thought you would "never waste (your) time on" such things. And on her it is not even protocoled and there was no hearing and in-depth detailed investigation. It seems you twist the truth in your favor where it is favorable.

I think we might differe in the following instance. Neutrality does not mean neutrality about objectivity. Sometimes taking both sides at face value, taking both sides as honest actors is not the right direction. I like hearing contrarian thoughts but most contrarian takes I hear on Trump are far away from reality in my opinion (especially on democracy). I think darkrange55 had some interesting takes on Trump. One can debate his economy policies, his foreign policies. He was always againist Nordstream, warned Europe from being too dependent on resources from Russia. But defending Trump on the topic democracy is bullshit. The facts are clear. Everyone who is willing and open to them will acknowledge that. Personally, I did not vote that Trump will install a dictatorship. But his relationship to elections is very clear and that he has damaged US democracy. It might not end but the damage is obvious.

 

[derpyderpins]

Intentions matter. These are not speculations the January 6th hearings shed a light on it. It is all documented in detail. For everyone free to read.

Yeah, I'm familiar. I stand by what I said above on the subject.

Well you just examined the mind of Hillary and used it as an argument. I thought you would "never waste (your) time on" such things.

Nope. I'm taking her words directly, not from a second-hand hearsay source. She said she thinks it was stolen and doesn't deny that it's what she thinks. I'm not making a determination based on speculation.

And on her it is not even protocoled and there was no hearing and in-depth detailed investigation. It seems you twist the truth in your favor where it is favorable.

wtf does that mean? She says it! And it's okay to say it! Are you sitting here trying to tell my Hillary Clinton is lying, or that I have the burden to show that she is telling the truth when she says out loud what she believes?

Man, I'm not twisting anything. I'm not your enemy.

I think we might differe in the following instance. Neutrality does not mean neutrality about objectivity. Sometimes taking both sides at face value, taking both sides as honest actors is not the right direction. I like hearing contrarian thoughts but most contrarian takes I hear on Trump are far away from reality in my opinion (especially on democracy). I think darkrange55 had some interesting takes on Trump. One can debate his economy policies, his foreign policies. He was always againist Nordstream, warned Europe from being too dependent on resources from Russia. But defending Trump on the topic democracy is bullshit. The facts are clear. Everyone who is willing and open to them will acknowledge that. Personally, I did not vote that Trump will install a dictatorship. But his relationship to elections is very clear and that he has damaged US democracy. It might not end but the damage is obvious.

If you think you're reasonable, actually open to other views (when at one point you legitimately asked on here if ANYONE supports the guy you don't like who has about half the country supporting him), and not just led along by one narrative, great. Keep on keepin' on.