Imagine if

[TexasTiger 12,949]

If there were a Republican nominee who had a viable plan to rein in the debt/deficit, protecting SS without significantly cutting benefits, managing the border/immigration, didn’t want national restrictions on abortion, didn’t want to pardon those who stormed the Capitol. That person would win in a landslide.

[AU9377 4,967]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

If there were a Republican nominee who had a viable plan to rein in the debt/deficit, protecting SS without significantly cutting benefits, managing the border/immigration, didn’t want national restrictions on abortion, didn’t want to pardon those who stormed the Capitol. That person would win in a landslide.

I'm still waiting to see that incredible plan for healthcare that was promised in 2015.  Somebody needs to use their uppers for something productive and get er done.

The truth is that the Republican plan for health care is what it has always been, which is no plan and no restrictions. Big Pharma gives a lot of money to politicians to keep their pockets flush with taxpayer money.

[Leftfield 2,610]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

If there were a Republican nominee who had a viable plan to rein in the debt/deficit, protecting SS without significantly cutting benefits, managing the border/immigration, didn’t want national restrictions on abortion, didn’t want to pardon those who stormed the Capitol. That person would win in a landslide.

Unfortunately the Republican Party hates Mitt Romney now because he's a responsible adult.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately the Republican Party hates Mitt Romney now because he's a responsible adult.

No, it’s because he is as milquetoast as any politician can be.  He was accused of being a politician that had lost touch with the world and never fought back.  You remember the famous *Hey Mitt, the 80’s called and wants their foreign policy back* about Russia. Guess what, he was right. Mitt is still milquetoast and that is why the Dems love him.  He has no fight in him.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

If there were a Republican nominee who had a viable plan to rein in the debt/deficit, protecting SS without significantly cutting benefits, managing the border/immigration, didn’t want national restrictions on abortion, didn’t want to pardon those who stormed the Capitol. That person would win in a landslide.

Don't believe it for a minute. A win alone is questionable. A landslide? Not happening.

[Leftfield 2,610]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, it’s because he is as milquetoast as any politician can be.  He was accused of being a politician that had lost touch with the world and never fought back.  You remember the famous *Hey Mitt, the 80’s called and wants their foreign policy back* about Russia. Guess what, he was right. Mitt is still milquetoast and that is why the Dems love him.  He has no fight in him.

Oh, I forgot...we should want a politician that pouts like a third grader when they don't get their way and then calls people childish names and threatens them.

Point about being an adult proven.

 

[auburnatl1 4,962]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately the Republican Party hates Mitt Romney now because he's a responsible adult.

Romney’s focus was classically Republican  - fiscal conservatism.  Magas focus is classically populist - cultural conservatism. Heck when Haley even tried to bring up social security maga just seemed confused and went back to ranting  about teachers plotting to switch their child’s gender. 

Today’s Republican Party has no concept of economic policy. None. Just the occasional red meat threat of tariffing  without really understanding the job, inflation, and interest rate consequences 

Edited March 21 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Today’s Republican Party has no concept of economic policy. None. Just the occasional red meat threat of tariffing  without really understanding the job, inflation, and interest rate consequences 

And our present administration understands these thing?  It is a bad choice, no doubt.

[AU9377 4,967]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, it’s because he is as milquetoast as any politician can be.  He was accused of being a politician that had lost touch with the world and never fought back.  You remember the famous *Hey Mitt, the 80’s called and wants their foreign policy back* about Russia. Guess what, he was right. Mitt is still milquetoast and that is why the Dems love him.  He has no fight in him.

They don't love him, but they do respect him for having the character to voice his convictions regardless of the cost to him personally. They respect Liz Cheney in the same way.  She tells the truth and Republicans turned on her without a second thought.  All in the name of Trump - who represents everything that we don't want children to emulate.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

They respect Liz Cheney in the same way.  She tells the truth and Republicans turned on her without a second thought. 

She wasn’t straight forward during the Jan 6th committee and conducted a biased view for the American people.  Very respectable.

 

 

[AU9377 4,967]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

She wasn’t straight forward during the Jan 6th committee and conducted a biased view for the American people.  Very respectable.

 

 

Evidence of that claim is what?  Just because someone tweets it?

[auburnatl1 4,962]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Evidence of that claim is what?  Just because someone tweets it?

Standard. Rarely a major news outlet (even Fox). Zillions of tweets from… somebody.

[Leftfield 2,610]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

She wasn’t straight forward during the Jan 6th committee and conducted a biased view for the American people.  Very respectable.

 

 

Wow. Trump wanted 10,000 National Guardsmen to keep the peace? That's weird. It's almost  like he knew something would happen. 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Evidence of that claim is what?  Just because someone tweets it?

Yeah, this was brought up in the committee that there was no *evidence* that he requested the NG and it was a big part of Cheney’s spiel.  Two years later it appears there is evidence he requested it and on top of that the witness that swore Trump tried to commandeer the beast by what *she heard* was proven to be false.

I guess it doesn’t matter now that the narrative is set.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

10 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Wow. Trump wanted 10,000 National Guardsmen to keep the peace? That's weird. It's almost  like he knew something would happen. 

Only a leftist’s logic would come up with this.

[Leftfield 2,610]

27 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Only a leftist’s logic would come up with this.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

My hair isn't exactly standing on end in shock that you recognized it.

[AU9377 4,967]

56 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, this was brought up in the committee that there was no *evidence* that he requested the NG and it was a big part of Cheney’s spiel.  Two years later it appears there is evidence he requested it and on top of that the witness that swore Trump tried to commandeer the beast by what *she heard* was proven to be false.

I guess it doesn’t matter now that the narrative is set.

The concern I have is that you seem to have no problem with any of the steps Trump was taking to overturn an election that didn't go his way.  Jan 6th was just a hail Mary after all else had failed.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, it’s because he is as milquetoast as any politician can be.  He was accused of being a politician that had lost touch with the world and never fought back.  You remember the famous *Hey Mitt, the 80’s called and wants their foreign policy back* about Russia. Guess what, he was right. Mitt is still milquetoast and that is why the Dems love him.  He has no fight in him.

damn i hate when you use big words. will there be a pop test later?

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

56 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

My hair isn't exactly standing on end in shock that you recognized it.

Trump mentioned several times he wanted the troops to combat the Antifa and BLM protesters he thought would be there, but you don’t believe anything he says….so.  

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

30 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The concern I have is that you seem to have no problem with any of the steps Trump was taking to overturn an election that didn't go his way.  Jan 6th was just a hail Mary after all else had failed.

Your opinion based on the political show that was the committee.  It was not a coup, insurection or attempt to take over the government.  It was demonstration that got out of hand.  If there were NG troops I would bet it would not have gone beyond a protest.

[Gowebb11 9,328]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If there were NG troops I would bet it would not have gone beyond a protest.

Protestors bring signs and posters. And there were some of those. But a lot of these nuts had pitchforks, nooses, zip ties, bear spray, clubs and even some guns. They were there to riot, destroy things, and some to round up and harm politicians. They were violent against uniformed cops. What makes you think they would have not been violent against the NG?

[auburnatl1 4,962]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Only a leftist’s logic would come up with this.

Respectfully, what was Trump trying to accomplish with the rally to begin with? This country, hell any democracy is based on the peaceful transition of power.  Or it collapses. Gore had a far far far stronger case for conspiracy based “stolen” and even he acquiesced for the good of the nation. Again, what was Trump doing having a major divisive rally on a weekday where only buffalo horned disturbed alt right types (many who would definitely be packing heat) could/ would take off the time to show up? Try to bully Pence into violating the constitution ?  Solicit a confrontation with the alt left or the even the police? Whine some more? What? It was a pointless recipe for disaster.  Guaranteed reckless train wreak 100% of the time.

Stop defending Trump for 5 secs or muscle memory deflect to Biden.  Besides a deadly temper tantrum “that got out of hand”, what sort of president / mental state puts other people at that kind of foreseeable risk that could never accomplish anything to begin with?  It’s irrational chaos. Just that event by itself was/is  damning evidence of a very dark and not too bright personality.

Edited March 22 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 12,949]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

She wasn’t straight forward during the Jan 6th committee and conducted a biased view for the American people.  Very respectable.

 

 

You’re sooo deep up Trump’s butt you can taste the Big Macs.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Evidence of that claim is what?  Just because someone tweets it?

There were several people in the room when Trump offered the troops. He did not order troops, he offered them. His offer was ultimately rejected. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, this was brought up in the committee that there was no *evidence* that he requested the NG and it was a big part of Cheney’s spiel.  Two years later it appears there is evidence he requested it and on top of that the witness that swore Trump tried to commandeer the beast by what *she heard* was proven to be false.

I guess it doesn’t matter now that the narrative is set.

There is actual testimony from several people who heard Trump offer the troops. I believe it was Miller who told the president they had it covered. We now know they didn't have it covered.

Concerning the narrative set, many articles stating Trump never ordered troops are out there. Their disingenuous nature has been pointed out. It is true, Trump never ordered troops. He offered them and was turned down.