2 pages ago? get your fetish of following the President day and night like some obsessed ex spam out of here. we've already seen the damage you try to inflict on your 'exes' here and it's not pretty.

reported, btw


says a math and election-denier who believes shit that the #fakenews tabloids put out like "hillary +12" and "trump told cohen to lie to congress" "cohen was in prague"

speaking of ideas lmfao the ideas you'll be voting for include 'capitalism is racist but i love it' -beto robert o'rourke, 'free shit for anyone unwilling to work' -barnie sanders and a bunch of people whose idea of political debate is calling tulsi gabbard and anyone they don't like a 'putin puppet national-socialist'

So if we just go Obama vs Trump in the same time frame, it's 2 vetoes vs 1 veto. You think there's much of a difference between 2 and 1? I'm no historian, but if you look at all of these past presidencies, I'm sure most of the vetoes came when the opposing party controlled Congress, and I'm also sure the president's own party was more willing to send bills to his desk that got vetoed. So everything I said is correct. The great majority of Obama's vetoes happened when Republicans were in control of the House and Senate.

This argument is irrelevant though, because a president vetoing legislation does not make him a dictator... it's right in the Constitution people.

why is this in image form lol

oh pls
Through the 90s and 00's the voice of the republican party was bible thumpers playing dumb while fearmongering and now its insufferable intellectuals giving monologues about nuance.
It used to be the case that republicans were defined by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, GWB, etc talking about their 'gut' and how jesus talks to them and sneering at atheists. Rush Limbaugh would shout angrily at people and Bill O'Reilly was a smug asshole. Now its a generation of neo-brooks-brothers-rioting young republicans like ben shapiro. Notice how Ted Cruz has played out half of Flowers from Algernon as he went from pretending to be retarded while emulating Bush to being an adroit memester on social media as he emulates Trump. Instead of being a smug asshole screaming at people, Tucker Carlson is a smug in his passive-aggression as he tries to draw as much attention possible to "I'm being civil and fair, unlike the MSM~!".

Having lived through an era when conservatism was defined by how much god you can deepthroat, I don't see how it can be compared to an era where half the republicans age 18-35 have watched a sargon of akkad video

You can find the non-image version in post #28493, here: https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&o=28475

/e Because quoting quotes, doesn't work.

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 19 2019 08:12am

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. We're not saying that no other conservative could have beaten Hillary, we're saying that once Trump was the nominee, it was a choice between two evils for a lot of conservatives:

- Pick Trump, the candidate much more closely aligned with your own ideology, who will nominate conservative judges, pass tax cuts, pursue a business-friendly, deregulatory agenda, but is also immoral, lying, has horrible personal conduct, tweets shit all the time, has no class and tact.
- Or pick Hillary, the unlikeable individual with a decades-long track record of dishonesty, corruption and incompetence, who will secure a liberal majority on the supreme court and most federal courts for a generation and pursue big government policies all around, restrict freedom of speech, rile up unnecessary tensions with russia, pull the US into UN treaties like the paris climate accord or the migration compact which will commit the country to detrimental actions for a long time. But she wouldnt have tweeted shit, wouldnt have mocked war heroes, wouldnt have picked futile petty feuds all the time and would have run an efficient administration - efficient at implementing an agenda that you strongly disagree with.


Is it really a sign of weak principles or anti-intellectualism if a majority of the reluctant conservatives go with Trump in this scenario? No, of course not.
And the same scenario still applies: in 2020, the only choice available will likely be to pick either Trump or Bernie/Warren/Harris/Beto/Gillibrand/Booker. Persons who are less corrupt and unlikeable than Hillary, but have a substantially more leftist agenda.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2019 08:16am

This would likely be among the reasons why some people want to see Trump's tax returns:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

Bank fraud, at minimum, if this is determined to be true.

Also, relationship with Trump notwithstanding, Deutsche Bank has it own litany of problems (enough that it is currently involved in merger talks with Commerzbank).

No one cares. Trump isn't a socialist and he doesn't hate whites. Two winning stances these days. LOL