Donald Trump shows himself to be the classless human we know him to be.

[homersapien 12,215]

On 7/23/2024 at 4:25 PM, IronMan70 said:

...left wing hate mongers have done nothing but try to demonize and dehumanize Trump. From the Russia collusion lie to the threat to democracy scam and everything in between. Your ilk supported all that demonization and it culminated in an assassin taking a shot at President Trump. After all that, now you want to feign to be offended because Trump uses a "mean" word ? Don't even go there.  

Do you seriously believe that, in spite of the facts? 

And you don't think trying to overturn a legal election is not a threat to democracy? 

What would you call it?

Edited July 29 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,573]

[IronMan70 3,321]

On 7/25/2024 at 12:31 AM, Leftfield said:

This looks like it was written by ChatGOP.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the person who took a shot at Trump was not someone who was trying to save the country. It was a mentally unwell guy, barely more than a kid, who wanted a high visibility target. Not much different than a school shooter. He had researched a number of locations as targets that included Democratic politicians, but this one was almost in his backyard and was convenient. 

Also, you keep saying Trump used some "mean words" like he's been hurling third grade insults. The guy drips hate and vitriol constantly and his supporters eat it up. You're so used to it you probably don't even realize it any more, unless you really are that big of a hypocrite. He constantly talks about his opponents as being the worst at anything they've ever done, and saying they'll destroy the country has been his go-to phrase the entire time. He frequently makes "jokes" about violence befalling others, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. I mean, my God, the man literally caused an attack on the Capitol building because of everything he was spewing, so spare me the indignation.

Support Trump if you must, but how anyone with a pulse can say with a straight face that anything Democratic politicians or the media have said about Trump is worse than what he's said is bonkers.

Do you think attempting to overturn an election is a threat to democracy? If not, why not?

 

The first sentence is cute but it sounds like something a 12 year old would say.

Of course you will make excuses, that's what left wing hate mongers do. You are trying to wash your hands of all the vitriol used by the left for the last 8 years because of the reaction to it. The result of that coordinated attack was the most violent response that can be made.

In the next paragraph you are trying to somehow say there is an equivalency of the 8 year coordinated attack of the entire Democrat apparatchik, by your leaders, left wing media and all their followers, to the words of one man ? That doesn't come close to being equivalent in degrees of magnitude or influence. As an example, most of what you say about this 1 man in this 1 paragraph isn't true. You misplace indignancy with calling you out on it.

Trump is not a threat to democracy unless you think him offering 10,000 troops to Nancy Pelosi for crowd control is a threat to democracy. She said no to the offer. Trump didn't try to "overturn" an election. Trump and his supporters questioned the validity of ballot dumps in 6 states and wanted those states to take another look at it. There are provisions in the constitution to do just that and there are examples of it being done in presidential elections before. That doesn't overturn the election. It sends it back to those states to be validated prior to certification.

An election can be certified but not validated, as in this case. Pence had the opportunity to do just that which is why 400,000 people showed up that day. Of that, less than 2000 entered the buildings, less than 400 were charged with violence and destruction of property. Most were charged with trespassing for looking around, like the little old ladies carrying Trump signs and the American flag. None were charged with "insurrection".

Trump didn't "cause an attack" with his words unless you think the words "peacefully and patriotically" fit into your narrative. No, he isn't a threat to democracy. What IS a threat to democracy is wide open borders, allowing terrorists into the country, allowing crime into the country, allowing voter rolls to be violated through the use of motor voter registration of illegal aliens, allowing the misuse of absentee ballots in the voting process, allowing the burning of cities and then calling them peaceful protests. All those ARE threats to democracy, I could go on for pages.    

Edited July 29 by IronMan70

[IronMan70 3,321]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do you seriously believe that, in spite of the facts? 

And you don't think trying to overturn a legal election is not a threat to democracy? 

What would you call it?

He never did that, see above.

[homersapien 12,215]

Just now, IronMan70 said:

He never did that, see above.

Have you spoken with Jordan Klepper yet?

 

 

[IronMan70 3,321]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Have you spoken with Jordan Klepper yet?

 

A far left satirist in the mold of Jimmy Kimmel ? Have you talked to Greg Gutfeld lately ?  

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

A far left satirist in the mold of Jimmy Kimmel ?

Who interviews actual MAGAs.

Edited July 29 by homersapien

[cbo 8,677]

4 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

If I remember correctly it is a phrase that Biden first said himself in a media interview with Jill.

You do not remember correctly. If you're so concerned about mocking presidents, you should look it up. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

 

The evolution of MAGAs going from: 

"Boo Hoo. Who cares if Trump says mean words and insults people. He's fighting for the common man, and words never hurt anybody. Stop being such liberal snowflakes! " 

to 

"WAAA!!! Democrats saying mean words have encouraged political violence! Someone Tried to Hurt Trump because he was obviously influenced by the nasty things Dems say! Why Can't Dems be more kind and diplomatic?" 

 

has been a sight to behold. 

[Leftfield 3,347]

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

The first sentence is cute but it sounds like something a 12 year old would say.

If it’s intimidating for you to talk with someone a few grade levels higher, I apologize. Next time I’ll aim for 8.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Of course you will make excuses, that's what left wing hate mongers do. You are trying to wash your hands of all the vitriol used by the left for the last 8 years because of the reaction to it. The result of that coordinated attack was the most violent response that can be made.

Listen close. Lean in a bit, please. Closer….that’s good.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE SHOOTING WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

There is basically zero evidence the shooter targeted Trump due to trying to keep him from becoming President. The only, flimsy evidence is that he donated $15 to a left-leaning organization three years ago. Dude was a registered Republican, and, as I already mentioned, it was found he had been making internet searches for where Democratic politicians were speaking, also. It could easily have been a Democrat he took a shot at, had any of them been near where he lived. Probably best to give up on this “people being mean to Trump made him do it” fantasy.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

In the next paragraph you are trying to somehow say there is an equivalency of the 8 year coordinated attack of the entire Democrat apparatchik, by your leaders, left wing media and all their followers, to the words of one man ? That doesn't come close to being equivalent in degrees of magnitude or influence. 

Ooooo, a Communist reference! How droll.

The words of one man? As if Trump doesn’t have hundreds of people working for him that parrot what he says? As well as Fox News and other, even further right media outlets yelling about what a danger the Democratic Party is to the country?

Are you really so in the tank as to think that Trump is standing alone crapping on people, or do you just prefer it that way because you cozy up to the idea of one man saving the world? That's certainly the way Trump wants you to see it, so you've successfully been duped.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

As an example, most of what you say about this 1 man in this 1 paragraph isn't true. 

What isn't true?

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Trump is not a threat to democracy unless you think him offering 10,000 troops to Nancy Pelosi for crowd control is a threat to democracy. She said no to the offer. 

Long since been debunked…..https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-fact-check-trump-biden-rioters-0b3406e02c86bd057e15c9d8c16ccd51

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Trump didn't try to "overturn" an election. Trump and his supporters questioned the validity of ballot dumps in 6 states and wanted those states to take another look at it. There are provisions in the constitution to do just that and there are examples of it being done in presidential elections before. That doesn't overturn the election. It sends it back to those states to be validated prior to certification.

If the states were just supposed to take another look, then why the attempt to replace electors?

Why have a protest and send a bunch of angry people to the Capitol after 60+ legal challenges failed? What possible reason could there have been other than to try and stop the certification?

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

An election can be certified but not validated, as in this case.

What does this even mean?

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Pence had the opportunity to do just that which is why 400,000 people showed up that day. 

You mean, Pence doesn't see the law as a pesky annoyance?

FBI and Secret Service estimate about a quarter of the attendance you claim.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Of that, less than 2000 entered the buildings, less than 400 were charged with violence and destruction of property. Most were charged with trespassing for looking around, like the little old ladies carrying Trump signs and the American flag. None were charged with "insurrection".   

Way to minimize.

What about all those who committed violence and destruction in the attempt to get in? You’ve seen the images. They were an international embarrassment.

The reasons for not charging insurrection have been discussed several times in other threads. Not going to rehash it here.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Trump didn't "cause an attack" with his words unless you think the words "peacefully and patriotically" fit into your narrative. 

Oh, don’t make us throw up.

Three words spoken with half an ass do not make up for the other 70 minutes of a speech clearly meant to incite people and rile them up. If he really meant those words he would have made some effort to stop the attackers that day. He made none until it was too late to make a difference, and even then he praised the attackers and kept pushing the stolen election lie. You focusing on those three words, instead of anything else he said, is absurd.

I should add, to complain that rhetoric from the left was responsible for the attempt on Trump's life and then deny Trump's rhetoric was responsible for January 6 is a stunning level of delusion.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

No, he isn't a threat to democracy. What IS a threat to democracy is wide open borders, allowing terrorists into the country, allowing crime into the country, allowing voter rolls to be violated through the use of motor voter registration of illegal aliens, allowing the misuse of absentee ballots in the voting process, allowing the burning of cities and then calling them peaceful protests. All those ARE threats to democracy, I could go on for pages.    

While I disagree with the way the border has been handled, calling it wide open is another talking point. And while certainly there are individual instances of illegal immigrants committing offenses, they are not causing a massive tidal wave of crime.

As for the voting stuff, do you have anything other than conjecture?

And once again, most of the George Floyd protests were peaceful. There was violence involved in some of the protests, just as we all figured there would be, because bad people often use things like the protests as cover to do bad things. None of us expected violence on January 6. There is one big, sweaty, orange reason that that certification was different than any other.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

I could go on for pages.    

By all means, let it fly.

 

Edited July 30 by Leftfield

[IronMan70 3,321]

Why in the world would you spend the time to make a response that long ? There are so many false claims in your post it would take forever to correct all of them. I'm not going to create the time for that so let me just respond to one of your responses....for now.

 

On 7/30/2024 at 7:21 AM, Leftfield said:

On 7/29/2024 at 11:39 AM, IronMan70 said:

Of course you will make excuses, that's what left wing hate mongers do. You are trying to wash your hands of all the vitriol used by the left for the last 8 years because of the reaction to it. The result of that coordinated attack was the most violent response that can be made.

Listen close. Lean in a bit, please. Closer….that’s good.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE SHOOTING WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

There is basically zero evidence the shooter targeted Trump due to trying to keep him from becoming President. The only, flimsy evidence is that he donated $15 to a left-leaning organization three years ago. Dude was a registered Republican, and, as I already mentioned, it was found he had been making internet searches for where Democratic politicians were speaking, also. It could easily have been a Democrat he took a shot at, had any of them been near where he lived. Probably best to give up on this “people being mean to Trump made him do it” fantasy.

Nice deflection but the point was NOT that it was politically motivated. The point was that it was influenced by all the left wing venom spewed over the last 8 years.

You say, "There is basically zero evidence the shooter targeted Trump due to trying to keep him from becoming President". What in the hell do you think he was doing for crying out loud ? 

You say, "The only flimsy evidence is that he donated $15 to a left wing organization 3 years ago. " Even that isn't true. The CEO of GAB was contacted by the FBI to search an account named "epicMicrowave".

 

This is Andrew Toba's response.

 

 

Andrew Torba

 

@BasedTorba

 

BREAKING: The FBI is now claiming that the Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks had an unspecified "social media account" in 2019/2020 (when he was 14/15 years old) that posted "anti-immigrant and anti-semitic" content. This is not consistent with Gab's understanding of the shooter's motives based on an Emergency Disclosure Request ("EDR") we received from the FBI last week for the Gab account "EpicMicrowave" which, based on the content of that EDR, the FBI appeared to think belonged to Thomas Crooks. Many, particularly regime media reporters, have doubted Gab's claims that this request existed. Normally we don't confirm the existence or content of law enforcement communications. In this instance we had to make an exception due to the overwhelming public interest in disclosure and transparency. As a courtesy to law enforcement, we are not going to post the entire request. This is the first page of that request. The story is this: the account for which data was requested was, UNEQUIVOCALLY, pro-Biden and in particular pro-Biden's immigration policy.

 

So as you can see, there is more to this than a $15 contribution to a left wing organization. But the salient point in all this is the left wing venom influencing a person like him.

Edited August 1 by IronMan70

[Leftfield 3,347]

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

Why in the world would you spend the time to make a response that long ? 

You posted an epic amount of BS, and I responded to it. Why do you not expect a response?

 

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

There are so many false claims in your post it would take forever to correct all of them. 

Spoken like someone who cannot, in fact, correct all of them.

 

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

 I'm not going to create the time for that so let me just respond to one of your responses....for now.

I guess we will see what emerges. There is no actual evidence of what was in the Gab account, there is only Andrew Torba's word. I admit I had to look up who he is. Suffice to say he does not appear to be an unbiased individual. While everything he says may prove out, I am not inclined to take him at his word.

 

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

Nice deflection but the point was NOT that it was politically motivated. The point was that it was influenced by all the left wing venom spewed over the last 8 years.

First of all, it wasn't a deflection. I was addressing the very point you tried to make again in your second sentence here. 

And what kind of ridiculous logic are you using, anyway? What the hell difference would "venom spewed" by the left make if his motive wasn't political?

 

1 hour ago, IronMan70 said:

You say, "There is basically zero evidence the shooter targeted Trump due to trying to keep him from becoming President". What in the hell do you think he was doing for crying out loud ? 

Did you actually read my response? I addressed this. I said the evidence was that this was a mentally unwell person who wanted a high-profile shooting, not really caring who it was, just that they were in the public eye. He had researched where Democratic politicians would be speaking, as well.

 

[IronMan70 3,321]

22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You posted an epic amount of BS, and I responded to it. Why do you not expect a response?

* bull**** to a radical lefty is truth to normal people.

 

Spoken like someone who cannot, in fact, correct all of them.

* It would be a piece of cake, it's a time issue.

 

I guess we will see what emerges. There is no actual evidence of what was in the Gab account, there is only Andrew Torba's word. I admit I had to look up who he is. Suffice to say he does not appear to be an unbiased individual. While everything he says may prove out, I am not inclined to take him at his word.

* I'll pass on this on this one, nothing totally ridiculous.

 

First of all, it wasn't a deflection. I was addressing the very point you tried to make again in your second sentence here. 

* Yes it was. The issue is the effect of hate speech.

 

And what kind of ridiculous logic are you using, anyway? What the hell difference would "venom spewed" by the left make if his motive wasn't political ?

* The important part is the hate speech. It could very well be political but he happened to be somebody easily swayed by that. That's why I've said before, this is not a game.

 

Did you actually read my response? I addressed this. I said the evidence was that this was a mentally unwell person who wanted a high-profile shooting, not really caring who it was, just that they were in the public eye. He had researched where Democratic politicians would be speaking, as well.

* Of course I did. I'm not sure he was just "after a high profile person." He did shoot a conservative after all. But as I have said the important part is the influence on him of the hate speech. Yes, he was definitely not well. 

 

I think we've done justice to this issue.

[Leftfield 3,347]

20 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

* bull**** to a radical lefty is truth to normal people.

Says the person who dismisses everyone who actually knows Donald Harris and says he's a black man, yet chooses to believe a reality show Judge.

And really, "radical lefty"?