USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris (pt II)

[liz]

I think if the Dems win it's probably in the best interest of the country to put into law that if you've committed a felony then you can't run for President.

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that would require a change to the Constitution, rather than just legislation.
Regardless, there is already a mechanism to disqualify someone from running again if they have transgressed egregiously, namely impeachment. Sadly the GOP senate didn’t have enough people willing to risk their own political career for the sake of the country. Mitch McConnell knew four years ago that the “stolen election” stuff was all bullshit but has only now started to regret not doing anything about it. Most of the rest of them knew it four years ago too. As soon as William Barr said there was no credible evidence of significant fraud they should have put an end to Trump’s deliberate undermining of trust in the electoral system by co forming the House’s impeachment of him.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Hope you plan on sleeping before Tuesday.

It’s gonna be wild. Wonder when you’ll skulk back into your hole.

 

[OneGreatClub]

No, I feared for his mental health first.

As a Trumper you really should fear for your own.

 

[spinynorman]

This is what leadership sounds like...
View attachment 2156630

There’s an obvious dissonance here. The Republicans are borderline fascists who will kill democracy if they’re elected, unlike me who will put Republicans in my cabinet.

Just terrible messaging.

 

[Stokey]

They must be exhausted!

No more exhausted than I am with this conversation.

 

[spinynorman]

So he’s saving his most popular stuff for the end of the campaign, then?

 

[Stokey]

It’s gonna be wild. Wonder when you’ll skulk back into your hole.

I'll just move on.

How will you cope it it works out not as you've obsessively hoped?

 

[OneGreatClub]

He used this rhetoric as red meat for his supporters to get riled up and take it further.

If he said this without everything he has said and done before, maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. We passed that point long long ago.

Exactly this

 

[Stokey]

As a Trumper you really should fear for your own.

But Im not a Trumper so nothing to fear.

 

[Maggie5]

elon doesn't care what or how he foments. no disagreements there about his lack of integrity.

Agree which is why I am surprised by the uproar about Trump and so called 'misinformation'.

i'm not bothered if people want to criticise any clip of trump's words, edited or not. but we could argue that trump's words were made more dangerous by editing the clip. if we're of the opinion that his most ardent supporters lack a lot of agency, and it often seems that's the case when they want to do stuff like string up mike pence, then removing any nuance helps stoke that danger, surely?

I seriously don't think that it was made more dangerous, they were words he has spoken and does so on many occasions, he knows what he is saying and for me is like a call to his supporters. Dog Whistling.

this isn't to say he couldn't have used a better analogy. he could have made his point without any violent imagery. maybe he knew that's the only thing his supporters would identify with. who knows.

This I agree with and further it isn't misinformation as those were his words. Out of context? perhaps yes.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I think if the Dems win it's probably in the best interest of the country to put into law that if you've committed a felony then you can't run for President.

Unfortunately the GOP will fast be running out of potential candidates to meet that high bar

 

[OneGreatClub]

But Im not a Trumper so nothing to fear.

Of course of course

 

[Skeppersap]

As a Trumper you really should fear for your own.

I'm not a 'Trumper', but I hope he wins purely because of people like you!

 

[GreyCrow]

it’s not even what he said. Embarrassing stuff.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle/index.html

View attachment 2156638

You may be right

But the use of the term '' 9 guns pointed at your face '' is eerily similar to a firing squad detachment

Thats where the concern lies - why didnt he say 100 guns or an army etc

While he didnt specifically say his intent was quite clear

 

[OneGreatClub]

I’m unsure what I will watch, I don’t have foxtel, maybe something on commercial tv or YouTube.

SBS perhaps

 

[Stokey]

Of course of course

is a horse of course of course.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I'm not a 'Trumper', but I hope he wins purely because of people like you!

Lofty rationale indeed

 

[Bloods86]

How did I know calling out lack of context and misinformation would lead to this ridiculous petty shit.

When I called out the ridiculous posting about “election fraud” and “fraudulent voting machines”, I get crickets.

Even in context, it's concerning because it's Trump saying it. He can hardly say it with a straight face, it's not like it's someone who served or didn't himself send troops off to conflict zones. So in that context, why is he talking about Cheney having guns pointed at her?

It fits with his suggestion of using the military against "the enemy within", even though people would prefer to ignore it.

But yes, media coverage should be better.

 

[GreyCrow]

There’s an obvious dissonance here. The Republicans are borderline fascists who will kill democracy if they’re elected, unlike me who will put Republicans in my cabinet.

Just terrible messaging.

Just to clarify it is not the Republicans who support fascism - its the Trumpers

There is a groundswell of Never Trumpers

It makes sense to try and engage them to vote Never Trump instead of not voting

 

[adogsfan5]

You may be right

But the use of the term '' 9 guns pointed at your face '' is eerily similar to a firing squad detachment

Thats where the concern lies - why didnt he say 100 guns or an army etc

While he didnt specifically say his intent was quite clear

There’s a HUGE difference between “let’s see if she’d be willing to face 9 guns pointed at her face” and “put 9 guns in front of her face”.

The rest of the video, the full video, is the main context. He was clearly criticising someone who he believes sits in a comfortable office whilst sending others to war. Whether that’s true or not, is besides the point. But the rest of the video has him saying this part.

People have cropped the video and made it sound like he just wants guns in her face.

But I guess anyone will jump on anything they can use as ammunition.

 

[Borough Blood]

I'm not a 'Trumper', but I hope he wins purely because of people like you!

Own da Libz!

 

[adogsfan5]

Even in context, it's concerning because it's Trump saying it. He can hardly say it with a straight face, it's not like it's someone who served or didn't himself send troops off to conflict zones. So in that context, why is he talking about Cheney having guns pointed at her?

It fits with his suggestion of using the military against "the enemy within", even though people would prefer to ignore it.

But yes, media coverage should be better.

Hes an idiot. If he removed that part of it and just said there’s no way she’d put her hand up to be on the front line, there’d be no problems. People have jumped on it like a fly to shit.
The huge issue is clearly context and how it’s now been used.

 

[Jupes]

"Let's put her with a rifle"
would make for an interesting firing squad

 

[GreyCrow]

There’s a HUGE difference between “let’s see if she’d be willing to face 9 guns pointed at her face” and “put 9 guns in front of her face”.

The rest of the video, the full video, is the main context. He was clearly criticising someone who he believes sits in a comfortable office whilst sending others to war. Whether that’s true or not, is besides the point. But the rest of the video has him saying this part.

People have cropped the video and made it sound like he just wants guns in her face.

But I guess anyone will jump on anything they can use as ammunition.

I'm comfortable he meant a firing squad

 

[Gough]

There’s a HUGE difference between “let’s see if she’d be willing to face 9 guns pointed at her face” and “put 9 guns in front of her face”.

The rest of the video, the full video, is the main context. He was clearly criticising someone who he believes sits in a comfortable office whilst sending others to war. Whether that’s true or not, is besides the point. But the rest of the video has him saying this part.

People have cropped the video and made it sound like he just wants guns in her face.

But I guess anyone will jump on anything they can use as ammunition.

Who exactly has she sent to war and even if she has been part of that decision why should she be more accountable than any other member of the US legislature? Why do you think Trump has singled out her for this criticism?