jlv wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 1:28 am
He used the National Guard on the BLM rioters, so it's hardly unprecedented. On 1/6 he did nothing and Pence had to take action
. He was either asleep at the switch or trying to assist the attack. If it was the former, he should have been impeached for the dereliction of duty. If the latter, it would be justifiable to try and execute him for treason. I think we all know what his intention was.
Getting out of my debate hat, and into my personal beliefs, I agree. The only thing that makes me even mildly okay with not using the guard to secure the facility is the significant lack of lethal weapons. It still should’ve been handled if he wanted any consistency with a case later on. I’m interested in what the argument in court is going to be if that comes up.
jlv wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 1:28 am
DBRider251 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:00 am
I genuinely had another section where I responded to the bit I had, then whole thing then accidentally deleted it I guess. Sorry for that. It was something like:
jlv wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:24 am
I said "we" meaning Republicans. If Republican voters can't see through populist charlatans like Trump the party deserves to be destroyed by him.
Republicans really haven't been able to see through their candidates since after Reagan. They became so infatuated with his policies that they would rather vote that party and not care who it was, than take a look at who was actually running. Trump isn't the one destroying it, it's been happening since the 90's, seemingly to both parties.
I think we actually do best with a Democrat president and Republican congress. That's the only combo that limits spending. If it's not split, the ruling party wants to pay off their big donors regardless of party. If it's split with a D congress controlling the purse strings they'll spend more since they're pro spending. It's only when you have a D president when the R congress will limit the spending. Look at Clinton/Gingrich and Obama/Boehner/Ryan. Compare that to Trump ballooning the budget from ~4 trillion to ~6 trillion.
I’d generally agree with you there. I’d like to give Trump the benefit of the doubt relating to his spending, most likely having the mindset of “spend now, save later.” I was critical of his plan there. We’ve transitioned to a time where bipartisanship is becoming a political stance though. Some people aren’t voting for candidates because they WOULD be bipartisan. I’ll be honest though, I don’t look at the spending changing much between candidates anymore. The world debt is increasing so significantly that I’m almost numb to it.
main focus in searching for political candidates is limiting the federal government. If you put the power back to the people and let most decisions be made at a state level, things would start to work themselves out I believe. I’d describe myself as a right leaning libertarian, but I know the yellow party will never accomplish anything meaningful because of their own self destruction
. We have so many things that need to happen, that never will, with the current fight we have because it’s all about the donors. My biggest gripe about both of the parties are empty promises and just misleading statements. Democrats say they want to help the environment, but won’t unlock nuclear energy. Republicans say there’s no need because what we have works, not understanding that there are finite resources that we can’t just use forever. It’s only one example of the never ending turntable we’re stuck on because X person gets paid to push electric and Y person gets paid to push fossil.
I got off track there, but it’s mind boggling how many people don’t see the problems right in front of their face.