• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections Second Assassination Attempt of Trump at his Florida golf course

you do know that massive mail in voting was implemented during the election right? Like no time ever, and if you're not questioning the ethics and issues that comes with that, then you're not paying attention. Vote harvesting use to be considered criminal activity, and it's only possible with wide mail in voting.
Why do you think there was more mail in ballots in 2020, then ever before?
Get in your Delorean, drive back to 2020, and then you will have your answer why some people decided to mail in their ballot that year.
Vote Harvesting, are you quoting 2000 mules. In case you are not aware, the company that distributed 2000 mules said it was a work of fiction, but yet you still quote it.
 
Are those all fake? Are you denying the evidence that's right in front of your eyes?
are you trying to pretend that only democrat politicians try to influence media platforms? even zuckerberg stated meta / facebook made their own decisions, not some deep state. he didn't reference any deep state. and as a matter of fact, they changed their policies.

and we know both biden and trump were trying to influence content on twitter.
 
you deleted the second half of my post where I said that very exact thing where nuance can exist. Glad that you got your likes though….
Not really. You insinuate that there could be people that exist that "think Trump is a piece of shit but aren't sold on Kamalas rhetoric" and then talk about how none of them post here. But you aren't accepting nuance, you're implying one other possible position that still pretty much falls in line with your belief.

Basically Trump = Shit and Kamala =They don't understand her

That isn't nuance. You.cant accept that centrists might think both are shitty on top of Biden also being shit. And that within all the shit, to them Trump is the least shit by a small margin of all shitty choices. Every option in regards to Trump is always nuclear.

This is ultimately the thing leftists, not liberals, cant understand. People can think Trump is the best (i.e. least worst) option from a list of shtty choices.

But even when you attempt to qualify a spectrum of positions for nuance you can't help yourself and you create a false dichotomy that still insists that Trump is objectively the worst choice. It might not be as bad as "everyone who disagrees gargles Trumps balls" but it isn't much better either.
 
Last edited:
Can’t wait to watch this loser get pummeled by Walz in two weeks. Oh it’s going to be glorious. He’s such an unlikeable clown
JD Vance is just angry he had to spread those cheeks so Peter Thiel would make him a partner in his Venture Capitalist company, when JD had a law degree and no experience in finance.
I would be angry too if I bottomed my way to the top.
 
no, he shouldn't be shot for hate filled inflammatory rhetoric. it's extremely weird though that those who engage in more hate filled inflammatory rhetoric become more likely to be shot by a wacko. i don't know how to explain it.......
Well use your brain and correlate what you say.. I can't believe you would vote for someone who does that
 
Can’t wait to watch this loser get pummeled by Walz in two weeks. Oh it’s going to be glorious. He’s such an unlikeable clown
You really think Walz is going to beat him in a debate, the dude walks and talks like a stupid 90's sitcom dad..
 
You really think Walz is going to beat him in a debate, the dude walks and talks like a stupid 90's sitcom dad..
Nobody has to "beat" Vance in a debate. You just sit back and let him speak and he beats himself. He is now ranked the worst VP choice, even over Palin and is greatly disliked by almost all who hear him speak, outside of the magat base.

90's sitcom dads were widely loved for a reason.
 
Not really. You insinuate that there could be people that exist that "think Trump
is a piece of shit but aren't sold on Kamalas rhetoric" and then talk about how none of them post here. But you aren't accepting nuance, you're implying one other possible position that still pretty much falls in line with your belief.

Basically Trump = Shit and Kamala =They don't understand her

That isn't nuance. You.cant accept that centrists might think both are shitty on top of Biden also being shit. And that within all the shit, to them Trump is the least shit by a small margin of all shitty choices. Every option in regards to Trump is always nuclear.

This is ultimately the thing leftists, not liberals, cant understand. People can think Trump is the best (i.e. least worst) option from a list of shtty choices.

But even when you attempt to qualify a spectrum of positions for nuance you can't help yourself and you create a false dichotomy that still insists that Trump is objectively the worst choice. It might not be as bad as "everyone who disagrees gargles Trumps balls" but it isn't much better either.
Its very easy to see why some people would prefer Trump, its not a mystery at all. If you're pro-life and want abortion banned Trump's your guy. If you're well off and want tax cuts Trump's your guy. If you're a single issue gun voter and always prefer the candidate that is less likely to regulate guns then Trump's is your guy. I don't accept the premises of those positions but if I did then the conclusion that Trump is the better candidate would make perfect sense. And of course we can imagine someone who holds all three positions at once and in their case of course they'd prefer Trump.

That's separate from the issue we were talking about in the other thread though. I don't think its an unnuanced position to assume Trump lied about the 2020 election claims given the available evidence in the Jack Smith indictment which I've alluded to and to assume he was acting in good faith in his efforts to overturn the election strikes me as granting him too much benefit of the doubt. Where am I lacking nuance here?
 
are you trying to pretend that only democrat politicians try to influence media platforms? even zuckerberg stated meta / facebook made their own decisions, not some deep state. he didn't reference any deep state. and as a matter of fact, they changed their policies.

and we know both biden and trump were trying to influence content on twitter.

What? The evidence that I provided shows that it's the FBI and CIA interfering in the elections by pressuring social media companies to censor one side. The FBI and CIA bureaucrats aren't democrat politicians, they're deep state actors.

It just happens to be that they're trying to influence it against Trump every time.
 
Nobody has to "beat" Vance in a debate. You just sit back and let him speak and he beats himself. He is now ranked the worst VP choice, even over Palin and is greatly disliked by almost all who hear him speak, outside of the magat base.

90's sitcom dads were widely loved for a reason.
where's that ranking, I am sure you got objective evidence to back that up .

Yea sitcom dad that is easy to make fun of and laugh at, like Allen in the hangover. But should not have any kind of power
 
Not really. You insinuate that there could be people that exist that "think Trump is a piece of shit but aren't sold on Kamalas rhetoric" and then talk about how none of them post here. But you aren't accepting nuance, you're implying one other possible position that still pretty much falls in line with your belief.

Basically Trump = Shit and Kamala =They don't understand her

That isn't nuance. You.cant accept that centrists might think both are shitty on top of Biden also being shit. And that within all the shit, to them Trump is the least shit by a small margin of all shitty choices. Every option in regards to Trump is always nuclear.

This is ultimately the thing leftists, not liberals, cant understand. People can think Trump is the best (i.e. least worst) option from a list of shtty choices.

But even when you attempt to qualify a spectrum of positions for nuance you can't help yourself and you create a false dichotomy that still insists that Trump is objectively the worst choice. It might not be as bad as "everyone who disagrees gargles Trumps balls" but it isn't much better either.
There was a reason why you didn't include that entire message......and you know why. I said they can dislike Trump as a person and dislike Kamala's policies, I suppose I should have used the word "dislike" vs. "not sold". You are being bad faith and you know it lol.

You are not a centrist if you find someone other than Trump to blame for all his fuckups, I am sorry, you are just not. That was the first point in the paragraph....You can still be a centrist and think that Trump's plans on xyz is better than Kamala, then vote for him. Thats fair too.
 
What? The evidence that I provided shows that it's the FBI and CIA interfering in the elections by pressuring social media companies to censor one side. The FBI and CIA bureaucrats aren't democrat politicians, they're deep state actors.

It just happens to be that they're trying to influence it against Trump every time.
does this mean they are no longer the deep state since the social media companies have changed their policies and processes?

again, trump was also trying to influence social media and has a big ally right now at X.
 
no, he shouldn't be shot for hate filled inflammatory rhetoric. it's extremely weird though that those who engage in more hate filled inflammatory rhetoric become more likely to be shot by a wacko. i don't know how to explain it.......

Well use your brain and correlate what you say.. I can't believe you would vote for someone who does that

The hateful rhetoric caushing someone to shoot him. Point out examples of this year

can someone translate this to english?
"it's extremely weird though that those who engage in more hate filled inflammatory rhetoric become more likely to be shot by a wacko. "

Her you go champ, I know you think men can get pregnant. It seems like there might be some misunderstanding or confusion. Could you please provide more details or clarify your statement so I can better understand the context
 
Back
Top