Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
I added that sentence for context. It clearly states what you believe, but it also points out that Luckbox was basically asking you to make a pro-Pete case, contingent on how he interpreted your previous comments. I think you're taking the "great" comment a bit too literally.
And you are dodging the "great" comment for all you're worth because it completely destroys any leg either of you have to stand on. Rather than ask the person who said he did a poor job to defend THEIR claim, you, and he, both decided to create a strawman and battle the ever living eff out of it. And you still haven't figured out that this is the whole point.
Since you refuse to do any reflecting on this conversation at all, let me show you an example of how to do that.
Have you asked yourself why he didn't bother restating the question? Imagine a scenario where he is intellectually honest for 2 seconds and said "oh sorry, correction: can you explain why you think he did an adequate job rather than a poor one?"
The answer is obvious: he wasn't actually interested in the answer. And you are STILL defending this behavior. And ignoring the behavior of the original claimant who said he did a poor job and never offered a SINGLE shred of evidence for that. Because no one even asked. Crickets for that claim, but 2 pages over a claim I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE.
Since you refuse to do any reflecting on this conversation at all, let me show you an example of how to do that.
Have you asked yourself why he didn't bother restating the question? Imagine a scenario where he is intellectually honest for 2 seconds and said "oh sorry, correction: can you explain why you think he did an adequate job rather than a poor one?"
The answer is obvious: he wasn't actually interested in the answer. And you are STILL defending this behavior. And ignoring the behavior of the
:/
For some reason, it's beyond you that I misread some comments. Clearly, I must be lying. You do realize my response to ecriture d'adulte was reflection, no?
For some reason, it's beyond you that I misread some comments. Clearly, I must be lying. You do realize my response to ecriture d'adulte was reflection, no?
No, what's beyond me is how I can repeatedly show you that he said "great job" and then you quote him as saying things like "good job," "adequate job," etc. If you did it one time, you'd have an argument. You did it MANY times and I called you on it each time. You then did it AGAIN. Repeatedly. This shows that you are either the densest mf on the planet, which I know you're not, or you are doing it intentionally. That is called lying.
I mean, if you'd rather we agree that you are the densest mf on the planet, I suppose we can?
gorg, do you have anyone on this site that you would consider a friend?
yes, but only in a "I don't know you personally, but you're cool online" sense. Why do you ask? You going to try to hurt my feelings somehow? You aren't capable of that, but feel free to try. Do you have anyone on the entire planet that can even tolerate your presence?
I'm tired, Gorgo. Anyway, given your avatar, I'm guessing you're from Calgary or thereaboots? I've been there twice. It's one of my favorite cities. Seriously.
I'm tired, Gorgo. Anyway, given your avatar, I'm guessing you're from Calgary or thereaboots? I've been there twice. It's one of my favorite cities. Seriously.
I'm tired, too. Yes, I'm from Calgary. Went to school in Edmonton and then moved to the south of the US about 12 years ago. We're cool, FYI (if you are). I know we just see things differently and you aren't trying to do what it looks like to me you're doing. I was going to be done with it back when you said you were done but the dunce cap brigade (not you) opened their mouth again. I'll drop the subject permanently now.
yes, but only in a "I don't know you personally, but you're cool online" sense. Why do you ask? You going to try to hurt my feelings somehow? You aren't capable of that, but feel free to try. Do you have anyone on the entire planet that can even tolerate your presence?
i'm just commenting that i only ever see you posting to to start arguments and it doesn't feel like you come for the right reasons
Can someone explain why all the people who scream about the constitution are silent when it comes to Trump wanting to end birthright citizenship (which is EXPLICITLY protected by the constitution)?
Change can be good. There's nothing wrong with tweaking something that's outdated, no matter what it is. Poker strategy, work, diet, or even the Constitution.
How about the dems wanting to end our right to bear arms?
Change can be good. There's nothing wrong with tweaking something that's outdated, no matter what it is. Poker strategy, work, diet, or even the Constitution.
How about the dems wanting to end our right to bear arms?
1) Democrats don't want to do that.
2) You just said change can be good. It's outdated, right?
Just don't pretend the constitution is so sacred in the future if you're so willing to just change it because you don't like it. How's that different from what you were told the democrats want to do (alter the 2nd amendment)?
It's actually hilarious to watch.
Them: We love the constitution! You can't touch the 2nd amendment! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
Trump: We should ignore the constitution and do what I want.
Them: You know sometimes change is good.
I doubt this does anything, but:
RFK Jr. Cabinet Nomination: Dozens Of Nobel Winners Urge Senate To Reject Trump’s HHS Pick
Mary Whitfill Roeloffs
Forbes Staff
More than 75 Nobel laureates have signed onto a letter urging senators to reject the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, warning a confirmation “would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in the health sciences.”
1) Democrats don't want to do that.
2) You just said change can be good. It's outdated, right?
Just don't pretend the constitution is so sacred in the future if you're so willing to just change it because you don't like it. How's that different from what you were told the democrats want to do (alter the 2nd amendment)?
camela, the stooge you voted for, wanted a "mandatory gun buy-back program".
Mandatory means "you don't have a choice"
Yes, sometimes change can be good, but unarming the public? no thank you.
