Have 2 people ever been more different than Trump and…

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Reagan?

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/ZSVe37ZDUhaX1Sz9/?mibextid=lfGLxo

[auburnatl1 4,980]

On 3/13/2024 at 7:59 PM, TexasTiger said:

Reagan?

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/ZSVe37ZDUhaX1Sz9/?mibextid=lfGLxo

Admit it, way down deep youve abandoned the Dems and secretly wanted a traditional Reagan type GOP candidate like Haley.   Its ok, very healthy, we won’t tell anyone.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Admit it, way down deep youve abandoned the Dems and secretly wanted a traditional Reagan type GOP candidate like Haley.   It’s ok, very healthy, we won’t tell anyone.

I’m not loyal to either party, although I’m far more troubled by the Republican Party. For this election, however, I would have preferred a Republican who never kissed Trump’s ring like Larry Hogan. I would hope he could tamp down some crazy— but Republicans are too far gone. Nikki needs to work against Trump’s election and get with other sane Republicans and independents and form a party for 2028.

[auburnatl1 4,980]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not loyal to either party, although I’m far more troubled by the Republican Party. For this election, however, I would have preferred a Republican who never kissed Trump’s ring like Larry Hogan. I would hope he could tamp down some crazy— but Republicans are too far gone. Nikki needs to work against Trump’s election and get with other sane Republicans and independents and form a party for 2028.

Not enough conservatives to further split it. IMO to do a 3rd party you’ve need someone more moderate.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 3/13/2024 at 6:59 PM, TexasTiger said:

Reagan?

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/ZSVe37ZDUhaX1Sz9/?mibextid=lfGLxo

Trump is nothing near Reagan. Different world today. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Not enough conservatives to further split it. IMO to do a 3rd party you’ve need someone more moderate.

A broadly centrist party - left center & right center— more interested in solving problems than polarization could draw a lot of folks.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Trump is nothing near Reagan. Different world today. 

Elaborate?

[auburnatl1 4,980]

Just seeing Trump next to Reagan causes me to convulse.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Elaborate?

Can only speak for what I see. In our developing years we saw a much more stability and future than what is there today. Our buying power alone was what? Maybe threefold of a like group today. 

Not near the pressure brought on by instant transfer of information and social media. Feel the differences in feelings concerning relatively small percentage issues carry over into political divide when they shouldn’t. 
 

Granted you have the Trump zealots. Think the rest are still “go to hell Washington”. 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

50 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Can only speak for what I see. In our developing years we saw a much more stability and future than what is there today. Our buying power alone was what? Maybe threefold of a like group today. 

Not near the pressure brought on by instant transfer of information and social media. Feel the differences in feelings concerning relatively small percentage issues carry over into political divide when they shouldn’t. 
 

Granted you have the Trump zealots. Think the rest are still “go to hell Washington”. 

 

 

Ends up “go to hell, America.”

[aubiefifty 16,822]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Trump is nothing near Reagan. Different world today. 

i have a favorite t shirt i wear often that has a picture of reagan with an american flag and it says "i smell hippies". i get compliments on it all the time.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Ends up “go to hell, America.”

Yes, as we import cannibals from Haiti, I see your point.

[aubiefifty 16,822]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, as we import cannibals from Haiti, I see your point.

be careful iam those cats watch everything and they will voodoo yo behind..................

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

16 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

be careful iam those cats watch everything and they will voodoo yo behind..................

I’m too old to look appetizing to them.  Not worried.  I would be easy prey thought.

[aubiefifty 16,822]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m too old to look appetizing to them.  Not worried.  I would be easy prey thought.

naw bro just break out the bazooka if youor dogs give you an alert they are trying to get in...grins. me? i talk them to death............you know that is true!

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Ends up “go to hell, America.”

Guess you can see it that way.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4413892-why-trumps-base-still-adores-him/

Or as Bret Stephens explains it, “For many Republicans, the visceral satisfaction of liberal anguish at a Trump restoration more than makes up for his flaws.”
 

 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

Guess you can see it that way.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4413892-why-trumps-base-still-adores-him/

Or as Bret Stephens explains it, “For many Republicans, the visceral satisfaction of liberal anguish at a Trump restoration more than makes up for his flaws.”
 

 

Driven by a strange, sad, pathological vindictiveness against people they don’t know. And this existed before inflation, Salty, so that’s not the reason.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Driven by a strange, sad, pathological vindictiveness against people they don’t know. And this existed before inflation, Salty, so that’s not the reason.

Not saying it is the reason. Just thought it was and good opinion article of why people still like Trump. What you laughing about @homersapien? Doubt you even read the article. I have always considered “The Hill” to be center which probably doesn’t suit you.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not saying it is the reason. Just thought it was and good opinion article of why people still like Trump. What you laughing about @homersapien? Doubt you even read the article. I have always considered “The Hill” to be center which probably doesn’t suit you.

You seriously don't think that quote - which I think is accurate, btw - is inherently funny???  Pathetically so, but funny nonetheless.

As for the article, it was simplistic and not really analytical - it's exactly the same sort of thinking that produced the final statement you quoted. Which is to say, dumb.

For example, the following statement characterizing Trump supporters thinking:

"Inflation was under control with President Trump. It isn’t now. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine when Trump was president. It did with Biden in the Oval Office. Hamas didn’t sneak into Israel and slaughter more than 1,000 civilians when Trump was president. They did on Biden’s watch."

Do you really believe Biden caused the inflation, or was it caused by extraneous factors neither president could control? 

Do you really believe Biden's election prompted Putin to invade Ukraine? (And if that's bad, how do you explain Republican reluctance to aid Ukraine, not to mention Trump's love affair with Putin?) 

Do you really believe Biden's election caused Hamas to execute a terrorist attack (they've been planning for years)?

To think any given POTUS is directly responsible for every bad thing that "happens on his watch" is simply stupid.   It's like blaming Trump for the Covid pandemic.   "S*** happens".  

What's really important is how the POTUS responds to S*** when it does happen.

If the author was simply relating the "thought" process of Trump supporters, fine. He's likely right.

But if he is trying to lend credibility to that thinking as justified, then he's just another crazy, partisan MAGA.

You cannot logically call Trump's critics as "clueless" while seri ously presenting clueless reasons as to why.

Any more questions?

 

 

Edited March 15 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You seriously don't think that quote - which I think is accurate, btw - is inherently funny???  Pathetically so, but funny nonetheless.

As for the article, it was simplistic and not really analytical - it's exactly the same sort of thinking that produced the final statement you quoted. Which is to say, dumb.

For example, the following statement characterizing Trump supporters thinking:

"Inflation was under control with President Trump. It isn’t now. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine when Trump was president. It did with Biden in the Oval Office. Hamas didn’t sneak into Israel and slaughter more than 1,000 civilians when Trump was president. They did on Biden’s watch."

Do you really believe Biden caused the inflation, or was it caused by extraneous factors neither president could control? 

Do you really believe Biden's election prompted Putin to invade Ukraine? (And if that's bad, how do you explain Republican reluctance to aid Ukraine, not to mention Trump's love affair with Putin?) 

Do you really believe Biden's election caused Hamas to execute a terrorist attack (they've been planning for years)?

To think any given POTUS is directly responsible for every bad thing that "happens on his watch" is simply stupid.   It's like blaming Trump for the Covid pandemic.   "S*** happens".  

What's really important is how the POTUS responds to S*** when it does happen.

If the author was simply relating the "thought" process of Trump supporters, fine. He's likely right.

But if he is trying to lend credibility to that thinking as justified, then he's just another crazy, partisan MAGA.

You cannot logically call Trump's critics as "clueless" while seriously presenting clueless reasons as to why.

Any questions?

 

 

Thanks for reading the article. The simplistic article did not blame Biden for inflation, etc…. Just said it happened under his watch. Will try and find you a more complex article the next time. Can see you feel that you are above some opinions.

[homersapien 11,393]

29 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Thanks for reading the article. 1) The simplistic article did not blame Biden for inflation, etc…. Just said it happened under his watch.

2) Will try and find you a more complex article the next time.

3)Can see you feel that you are above some opinions.

1) I understand that (duh).  The author cited that as an example of Trump critics as being "clueless" as if they weren't aware of it.   He never actually made a substantive statement as to why it's false. He treated it as if it was.

2) Aw, I wasn't criticizing you, I was criticizing the article. (Or were you just being snarky?)

3) Absolutely.  (But in this case, I don't really know what the author's opinions are.  He didn't really say.)  I think I made my feelings about the actual opinions themselves pretty clear. I make no apologies for not taking them seriously.  If that makes me "above" them , so be it.

I see you are avoiding any substantive response to my actual points, so I assume you agree with them. 

Edited March 15 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) I understand that (duh).

Not sure you did but go ahead a be you. What points are trying to make?

Edited March 16 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not sure you did but go ahead a be you. What points are trying to make?

That every example provided of why Trump supporters continue to support him are based on a lie.

To reference them as if they are true, makes for a absurd example to use for blaming Trump critics for "not understanding them" (logically speaking).

I hope that helps.

(Thanks for granting me the license to be myself.  You keep on being you. I'll help you out the best I can.)

Edited March 17 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That every example provided of why Trump supporters continue to support him are based on a lie.

To reference them as if they are true, makes for a absurd example to use for blaming Trump critics for "not understanding them" (logically speaking).

I hope that helps.

(Thanks for granting me the license to be myself.  You keep on being you. I'll help you out the best I can.)

He also addressed immigration, being woke, your claim of a “threat to democracy”, liberal media, progressives calling people a bigot. I thought it was a pretty good article and no need for 8 pages.

[homersapien 11,393]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

He also addressed immigration, being woke, your claim of a “threat to democracy”, liberal media, progressives calling people a bigot. I thought it was a pretty good article and no need for 8 pages.

"liberal media"...  "being woke"

You're part of the problem.

Edited March 17 by homersapien