I love how Pdiddy arrest happen a day after this incident. Guess they don't want people to talk bout Trump. Like they put in Kamala after the first attempt. We shall not talk bout Trump on the corporate news.

the truth turns your world upside down, reflect on it for a while:







https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflection

Vance would presumably clean up the election with ease, what happens from there is anyone's guess. He's clearly not a great politician, a majority of the people's first reaction to him is not liking him. But once in office, they would be forced to listen to him and get to know him more, so I assume he would benefit quite a bit from incumbency. I have no idea how he would govern, though; whether he would try to burn down the swamp or just settle for a staunch right-wing administration within the parameters of the system.

But yes, there'd be a rather high likelihood for the MAGA movement (in the stricter sense) to just fizzle out. Trump is unique, no other person can replicate what he's doing. I really don't see the GOP going back to its pre-Trump policies and ideology though. The only hope for the neocons and NeverTrumpers is that Trump ekes out an unconvincing win with a huge popular vote - electoral college split, followed by an utterly disastrous second term which makes GWB in 2008 look popular in comparison. Taking out Trump now would imho weaken MAGA in terms of general elections, but consolidate/strengthen its grip on the GOP.

Besides the political consequcens, I would expect an eruption of violence and chaos. And I would expect the MSM to essentially go full mask-off and condone or even outright cheer the murder of Trump. Which, in turn, would imho cause the Trump-supporting or Trump-curious ~50-55% of the country to lose their trust in the MSM even more.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 17 2024 05:16pm

Glorifying the first attempt likely is the reason why a second occured but that doesn't fit your narrative

I may just vote for the guy these fuckers keep trying to kill.

HE was the one who made the "second amendment people" speech, your nonsense won't fly here, keep crying.
ONE presidential candidate has called for murder of a political opponent and it was Donald J trump, you do not get to cry when crazies got some ideas from it.



Only someone with your sheer level of delusion can call saying bad things about your rival as a call for assassination but ignore THE ACTUAL CALL FOR ASSASSINATION that was made by YOUR guy.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Oct 4 2024 05:49pm

One of the most basic human skills, learned by toddlers, is to understand what other people are saying. Not merely to recognize strings of words, but using contextual clues to derive intent.
If someone is incapable of understanding other people's speech, even when their phrasing or word choice is slightly off beat or unusual, its generally a sign of incompetence by the listener, or a learning disability.

So for example, when a politician is giving a speech about the legal protections around the right to bear arms and challenges in court it has faced, and the potential for Hillary Clinton to pick activist judges to stack the court against our constitutional rights, and Trump obliquely references 'the second amendment people'- a normal competent human being would understand from the context of the rest of his speech he is plainly referring to organizations like the NRA, Federalist Society, etc who counterbalance these activist judges and bring legal challenges. Someone with a learning disability might think he's somehow implying his political rival should be assassinated, because someone who doesn't understand the english language and is unable to follow conversations might make a word association game in their alphabet soup by connecting the 2nd amendment to guns, guns to murder, and connecting Hillary to murder, because the hypothetical person in my example- clearly not a real person on PARD- wouldn't even be able to tie their own shoelaces or be trusted to carry a pair scissors

A helicopter would have trouble getting more spin than this, you and i and everyone else here knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and you trying to pretend otherwise is not only pathetic but it also makes you look unintelligent.
"Unable to understand the english language" If you ask ANYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD who understands what the second amendment states and knows who donald trump is, yes even EXPERTS in the english language, they will say he was advocating shooting hillary clinton, period.
He even smirked when he fucking said it, that same shit eating smirk he uses whenever he is shit talking some one.

"Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know."

This is as clear as day to anyone with an iq over 50.

Now if you think this is LESS of an issue than the twaddle you posted from biden that said nothing even close to what trump did you are a rank hypocrite and should not even bother posting here.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Oct 5 2024 12:49am

Is English your first language?

Democrats have explicitly and literally called for violent acts. Meanwhile Trump says a few things that don't sit well with Hillary and it's heinous treachery.

Why would someone be for abolishing an amendment which ensures the safety and security of a free state, free state being your friends, family, community?