|
Replies: 68
| visibility 401
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Question for those who dont like Nikki
2
Feb 14, 2024, 8:14 AM
|
|
What specifically is it about her you dont like?
As a governor and on the campaign trail she pretty much has the same policies trump does. She is for a strong defense and for strong southern border. People in here call her a moderate or a democrat. I’m curious why and be specific.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4792]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4835
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: Question for those who dont like Nikki
1
Feb 14, 2024, 8:16 AM
|
|
Please refer to one of the, at least, twenty threads where this has already been discussed. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Question for those who dont like Nikki
Feb 14, 2024, 8:37 AM
|
|
Most people give general reasons. They say she is not for a strong border which in fact she is.
I don’t see any facts you posted either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97751]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64883
Joined: 7/13/02
|
She's simply not orange enough. She needs no spray tan in a can
1
Feb 14, 2024, 8:21 AM
|
|
That's her first strike. Second, she's a globalist elite wannabe, which was proven when she was UN ambassador. She is a stabpub who will do nothing to fix our problems. She's a part of the system that is slowly wrecking America.
Personally, she's just the anything but Trump poster child. And that's a bad spot to be in. Honestly I wish she would just tell people the truth because they will learn it one way, or another. Sadly, that's the hallmark of stabpubs and most dems even. No one explains to people that the problems we have are what we thrive on, and "fixing" them entails a lower standard of living and recession. You want a trade balance? You want the border sealed? You want a balanced budget in Washington? Fine. Are you willing to accept inflation, recession, and a lower standard of living? This is what we face, and what no one talks about. NO ONE.
America thrives on ignorance, and as such, we're being led that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49176]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 27604
Joined: 8/10/02
|
what's a stabpub?***
Feb 14, 2024, 8:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: She's simply not orange enough. She needs no spray tan in a can
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:02 AM
[ in reply to She's simply not orange enough. She needs no spray tan in a can ] |
|
Thanks for proving my post about people do not give facts of why they don’t like her. Claiming she is a global elite wannabe is purely an opinion. BTW what is a global elitist wannabe in the first place. She is conservative and a great option for republicans
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17300]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14243
Joined: 12/14/98
|
And gender. But mostly shes not white and a product of immigration***
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I'll throw three out there:
Feb 14, 2024, 8:28 AM
|
|
She called for a ban on anonymous social media posts, which I am against.
She is in favor of supporting Ukraine with military aid, which I am against.
I'm not ready to have a woman president.
She has some things in her favor, to me, as well:
I like that she's a local, and a Clemson girl.
I think there would be way less drama and combative media BS if she was in office vs. Trump/Biden.
I think she has a better chance against Biden than Trump does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: I'll throw three out there:
1
Feb 14, 2024, 8:35 AM
|
|
Thanks for facts you posted.
At first I was for helping Ukraine. Now I’m not so sure. We got hot spots popping up all over the world. Gaza, Persian Gulf, Ukraine. We can’t be everywhere all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I have questions about all 3 of those, but "not ready for a woman President"?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 8:52 AM
[ in reply to I'll throw three out there: ] |
|
Are you afraid the menstruation will attract bears to the White House? I'm curious why this one matters to you. She is an actual adult next to Trump, and highly competent and lucid next to Biden, and her policies should appeal to any actual conservatives left in the country that aren't blinded by red hats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I've worked in an industry for almost 20 years that's exclusively male
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:12 AM
|
|
which probably plays a part in why I see all female authority figures as b-words.
I don't even like my gps to have a woman's voice.
I'm usually a pretty level headed fellow, please allow me this one quirk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I don't know if you've noticed lately...
2
Feb 14, 2024, 10:18 AM
|
|
But having some pretty ###### dudes lead our country the last few decades is how we've gotten in a lot of these messes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Is your claim on social media posts correct?...
3
Feb 14, 2024, 9:05 AM
[ in reply to I'll throw three out there: ] |
|
I honestly don't think it is, but I'm not 100% up to speed on that issue.
My impression was that she called for social media companies to have to verify account owners, but not that the accounts can't still be anonymous. The thought behind that push was to eliminate "foreign bots".
I thought she said in passing it would be better if all accounts were not anonymous because it would lead to less extreme rhetoric on-line, but didn't think should be legislated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
details, details***
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Is your claim on social media posts correct?...
Feb 14, 2024, 9:09 AM
[ in reply to Is your claim on social media posts correct?... ] |
|
I got no problem with pulling back the curtain for all to see. It would make the world a better place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Me too, but it shouldn't be legislated by the federal gov***
Feb 14, 2024, 9:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
That is consistent with what I wrote...
Feb 14, 2024, 9:20 AM
|
|
she is calling companies to verify account holders by name. That isn't the same as saying all posts have to be made under that account holder's name. The account name can still be "OBED", but Tigernet would have to confirm whoever is being "OBED" is a real person.
I don't think she's walked back anything on that...at least not based on the opinion piece you linked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Not sure I followed your question correctly...
Feb 14, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
I do not support the federal government legislating that social media platforms can't have anonymous user names.
I do support social media companies making sure accounts aren't foreign bots and would be ok with that being legislated, if it comes to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
lol ok.
Feb 14, 2024, 10:27 AM
|
|
I showed you she said exactly what you believed she didn’t say, I’m not gonna play pedantic party cake over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Sigh....ok I'll say it again...
Feb 14, 2024, 11:28 AM
|
|
from what I see, she isn't calling for a federal legislation to have every user named. What I believe she is saying, in the quote you posted, and from other statements she's made...that she thinks if everyone operated under their name and not hit behind an anonymous handle, that things would be more civil.
I too believe that, but, like her, don't think that should be legislated.
I believe you are confusing an opinion and hope with a proposal for legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
She says its a matter of national security.
Feb 14, 2024, 11:56 AM
|
|
You really want to pretend that given that, she wasn’t caging it as an area of executive action? You’re trying too hard to make her not say what she said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Pretend? No...I think think you're really reaching here...
Feb 14, 2024, 12:08 PM
|
|
suggesting that she'll issue an EO when I don't believe she's ever suggested that she would do that. Further, she's call for companies to verify their users. I would hope/assume that would be done under legislation. Let's don't assume she will accomplish everything she believes needs to be done the same way that her 2 predecessors did.
One of us is reaching here....and it ain't me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Re: Pretend? No...I think think you're really reaching here...
Feb 14, 2024, 12:18 PM
|
|
“When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms,” Haley said. “Let us see why they’re pushing what they’re pushing.”
“The second thing is, every person on social media should be verified, by their name. That’s, first of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say. And it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots. And then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say, and they know their pastor and their family members are going to see it,” the 51-year-old former Trump administration official added. “
Ok, for your “non-reach” to be correct:
1) A candidate saying the first and second thing they would do in office is not referring to things they would do.
2) A presidential candidate believes something is a national security risk, but is outside of their purview to address. You’re literally saying she thinks something is a national security threat, but intends to do nothing about it.
3) Presidental candidates don’t primarily boast about things that they will have some level of direct, meaningful impact over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm a little puzzled why you think...
Feb 14, 2024, 12:33 PM
[ in reply to She says its a matter of national security. ] |
|
Haley would EO this when she didn't threaten that, but you feel secure that Trump threats of curbing democracy are a nothing burger. Especially since he's made attempts.
Of these three (Biden, Trump, Haley), she's probably the least likely to overstep authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Was waiting for this.
Feb 14, 2024, 12:40 PM
|
|
As I said in this thread, he said “I’ll be a dictator on day one. For one day only. I’ll undo all of Biden’s Exexutive Orders”.
Poor optics, and inarticulate as I already said, but pretty clear what he was saying.
What is your interpretation of what she means here? It’s far more nebulous so I’m left to draw conclusions. Do you believe that “when I get in office the first thing….” Doesn’t pertain to actions she will take? Do you believe she intends to be president but not address self-described. National security threats? That seems like dereliction of duty.
In short, her statement was a lot more nebulous than Trump’s, so some inference is required, and I could be wrong, but that’s certainly how I’m left to read it.
“When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms,” Haley said. “Let us see why they’re pushing what they’re pushing.”
“The second thing is, every person on social media should be verified, by their name. That’s, first of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say. And it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots. And then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say, and they know their pastor and their family members are going to see it,” the 51-year-old former Trump administration official added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Was waiting for this.
Feb 14, 2024, 12:50 PM
|
|
You don't have to convince of the problems with Haley's statements. But I also know she's someone who values the idea of Congress passing legislation, and I think she's smart enough to know that an EO mandating what she said wouldn't be constitutionally held up.
She has a point on the national security but ham-handedly addressed it and crossed into privacy issues for Americans. So yeah, I get the problem.
This isn't even in the same sport let alone ballpark as Trump. Again, a man with a history of trying to subvert the constitution and flirting with using the military to force his way back into power. When he says he'll be a dictator--and I don't give a good god #### about the semantics of it--he has no business getting close to the White House again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Do you feel this is enough not to vote for her?***
Feb 14, 2024, 11:29 AM
[ in reply to lol ok. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Is it a dealbreaker? No
2
Feb 14, 2024, 12:00 PM
|
|
Does it give me real concern that she’s more of the same old Patriot Act “it’s ok to surrender liberties if it keeps us safe” mindset? Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I thought it was.
Feb 14, 2024, 9:15 AM
[ in reply to Is your claim on social media posts correct?... ] |
|
but I'm not up 100% up to speed either.
I know there was a good deal of backlash.
For sure the foreign bot crap is garbage. If I can have AI write a document for me, then I can submit the document to AI and ask if it was written by AI, and it can tell... then why couldn't AI do that with bot posts. No need to actually know WHO said it, just that it was said by a human... hope that makes sense. It was non-AI written... probably not much "I" was used in this post at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24814]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42569
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I definitely don't agree with the sentiment that it SHOULD be
Feb 14, 2024, 9:26 AM
[ in reply to Is your claim on social media posts correct?... ] |
|
legislated, although she's correct that it WOULD change the entire complexion of social media. The more relevant point (I think, anyway) is that it's a pipe dream, essentially impossible to do even if we all collectively wanted to. It could kill FB and Insta and other American-based companies, but they'd either move offshore or be replaced by foreign companies with the same social media models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
So we should dismiss concerns about candidates
Feb 14, 2024, 9:47 AM
|
|
If they have zero practical way of becoming reality……like Trump “killing democracy” and becoming dictator of the country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
or Hitler's "final solution"?***
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Yeah, I'd put Trump's dictatorial aspirations at something north of 0%,
1
Feb 14, 2024, 10:00 AM
[ in reply to So we should dismiss concerns about candidates ] |
|
based on the events from 3 years ago. What happens that day if Trump declares a national State of Emergency?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Whatever that percent is, its far far lower
Feb 14, 2024, 10:18 AM
|
|
Than Haley issuing an EO banning true social media anonymity, but bias (conscious or unconscious) is letting you blow one off but not the other based on likelihood of becoming reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
What's more feasible
2
Feb 14, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
Nikki signing that EO AND actually getting tech companies/social media giants to obey her and comply, or Trump weaponizing the DoJ and law enforcement to start locking up political opponents?
Serious question. I argue the latter.
EDIT: And, working under the assumption that both of these candidates would do what they promise in this arena, which one is more dangerous for America?
Message was edited by: Catahoula®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Weve had this discussion before
Feb 14, 2024, 10:37 AM
|
|
I think the latter is zero percent.
I think you have to ignore the fact that Trump was unable to bend any of the US pillars of power to his will during his entire last term to believe he magically has the juice to pull that off. You guys know he’s an inarticulate oaf but somehow believe he can bend the power structure of the country to his will.
You give the man too much credit and our country not enough. I can say with 100% confidence that if he tried anything you guys are scared of, within the hour he would have the SotH, Senate majority leader, a couple Generals and some MP’s with handcuffs showing up in his office. All these fears about what he could do feel like really bad fan fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Weve had this discussion before
1
Feb 14, 2024, 10:40 AM
|
|
I'm not sure if you saw my edit, but it's worth factoring in here.
I agree with you... about last time. There were safeguards, but Obed, he #### near pulled it off. This time around, he's going to make sure he's surrounded by nothing but yes men. You think the SOTH and the House will stop him? No, he owns them.
You may be right; there may still not be enough for him to do it. But this time, he WANTs to do it. This presidency run now is about vengeance and settling scores. That's all it is. He says he plans to be a dictator on day one. His followers say they want a Trump dictatorship.
That alone is reason he shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot. Period. Full stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Love you man, but youre better than taking a typical
Feb 14, 2024, 11:05 AM
|
|
Dumas statement of his and bending it to a narrative.
He said he’d be a dictator FOR one day (the first day), and he was talking explicitly about issuing EO’s to undo Biden’s EO’s.
It was typical Trump dumbassery via word choice, and I don’t even like EO’s for the most part, but it sends the convo down a spiral where facts don’t matter when the spin is applied like that. His comments, stupid and tactless as they were, did not indicate an intent to be a dictator. If we are thinking or different quotes, than show me and I’ll be the first to say my bad.
At the end of the day, he’s a bit of a clown, and if our country were going to be taken over Hitler-style, it would take a guy with a lot more arrows in the quiver than he has. Believe in the country more and in his abilities less. Your ratios are out of whack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How many chances do you want to give him...
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:09 AM
|
|
To prove he's not going to do what he says? He floated the idea of declaring martial law and getting the military to step in so he could maintain power after the election. He boasts of impending authoritarianism when gets back in.
How many times you want to play this Russian roulette of "well, does he mean it or not" before he actually pulls something off?
I remember a time when a person wouldn't sniff the White House if he said he would be a dictator, even on day one. But here we are.
Believe in the country more and in his abilities less.
I watch video clips of his mouth breathing WWE worshipping supporters calling for a dictatorship, and then I see he/she/they/them blue hair propping up Biden before demanding I stop eating steak. Those are our voices now, and they've given our nation this choice. My hope for America turning this #### around is all but gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
This is a bit like you believing that half the country was still screaming
Feb 14, 2024, 10:28 AM
[ in reply to Whatever that percent is, its far far lower ] |
|
about the stolen 2000 election 3 years later, when nothing like that actually happened. Bias allows you to remember what you want to remember. We all do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I'm curious if you're even aware of how much you're cherrypicking
Feb 14, 2024, 11:46 AM
|
|
the terminology in this poll.
Democrats Most Likely to Say Bush Won on Technicality
In polls conducted since December, a little more than one-third of all Democrats have said that Bush stole the election, while roughly half have said that Bush won the presidency on a technicality, and just 15% said he won fair and square.
HALF of Democrats say he won the Presidency on a technicality, which is absolutely NOT the same thing as cheating to win the election. Hell, I'd wager that a pile of Republicans also believe that Bush won on a technicality, with the difference being that they were happy about it instead of the opposite. I mean, that's what it was. The SC HAD to make a decision, and that poll would have been essentially flipped with half of Republicans believing Gore won on a technicality if the court had ruled that way.
The poll you referenced was also about 7 months post-2000 election. Here's one from 2.5 years after the 2020 election:
Just 21% of Republicans believe Biden won his election fair and square, while 68% say he won "due to voter fraud."
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/almost-third-americans-still-believe-2020-election-result-was-fraudule-rcna90145
The two situations aren't even comparable because we're trying to evaluate the difference between unfounded accusations of cheating with intent (that tens of millions of people still wholeheartedly believe today) vs. polling place/voting procedure incompetence with hanging chads and repeatedly flawed audits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Ok man.
Feb 14, 2024, 11:54 AM
|
|
They were totally cool and accepting of a win by a technicality, and a full 1/3 of Dems believing it was stolen isn’t statistically significant. You got me. Dems have embraced all election results ever, en masse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: Ok man.
Feb 14, 2024, 12:06 PM
|
|
So are you arguing cultural acceptance of the election results between 2000 and 2020 are equivalent? If so… I mean ok. But you’re not drawing a comparison between the conduct of the two candidates or the legitimacy of their concerns are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Id say concerns are pretty equal in legitimacy.
1
Feb 14, 2024, 12:10 PM
|
|
Behavior of candidates? Nah. Gore was ungracious but he shut up pretty quickly instead of non-stop crying for four years.
I do view that as significant though. Like I said, the “not my President “ chants and mindset really started steamrolling then, and in my opinion moved us away from the President being all of our President, to only respecting the office if its who you voted for that’s occupying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: Id say concerns are pretty equal in legitimacy.
2
Feb 14, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
Fair enough. While I was but 12 years old in 2000, my current understanding of the situation was a court challenge regarding the legitimacy of even conducting a recount of “hanging chad” etc ballots that went Gore’s way in FL and Bush’s in the USSC. I’m not sure that’s exactly on par with the wild wacky stop the steal/dominion/chinese bamboo fibers/Venezuela/Server in Europe stuff from 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Whoa whoa. They were not anywhere equal in legitimacy
Feb 14, 2024, 12:38 PM
[ in reply to Id say concerns are pretty equal in legitimacy. ] |
|
And I say this as someone who believes Bush fairly won, but he won that controversy by an absolute razor thin edge. Gore had an argument. And his people around him lost their minds when he conceded; they thought he should keep fighting but he conceded and obeyed the court decisions.
Trump got blown out in 2020 and was already building a case based on lies before the election even happened. The entire orchestration was a sham from the beginning and Trump knew it. They were ready to scream foul before any vote was cast because they knew he would lose. Even after legitimate audits that proved he got crushed, Trump fought against it all the way up to Jan. 6.
Gore had a reason to still argue only because of how close it was. But he bowed out for the good of America and ceased the fight.
Trump's claim was a lie from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
There were a ton of Trump claims that were bogus, sure
Feb 14, 2024, 12:43 PM
|
|
But I don’t view taking issue with the Supreme Court ruling as any different from taking issue with Covid voting rules being put in place that were against state constitutions.
Both likely changed nothing, but worrying about either is equal in legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They're different.
Feb 14, 2024, 12:53 PM
|
|
Gore wasn't claiming he'd refuse to accept the results before the election. Trump did and already had plans in place to fight it. He had no intention of believing a legitimate election. He knew he was going to lose, and the Covid voting rules wouldn't have changed that. The man called up Georgia and tried to get them to make up 11,000 votes for him. Gore stepped away needing far less.
Trump didn't have a legitimate claim against anything before the election. It all boiled down to knowing he was going to lose and he was going to be a crybaby about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Ok. Thats like, your opinion man.
Feb 14, 2024, 1:28 PM
|
|
You keep adding variables. I’ve already acknowledged different behavior
On the legitimacy of the two examples I listed, they’re directly analogous.y
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That would seem like an outrageous claim if...
1
Feb 14, 2024, 10:19 AM
[ in reply to So we should dismiss concerns about candidates ] |
|
Trump hadn't said out loud that he will be a dictator on day one and so many of his supporters weren't saying out loud that they want him to be a dictator.
When are we supposed to take him and them on his word and when are we not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24814]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42569
Joined: 7/31/10
|
"Close the border" and "Drill, baby, drill"... I agree with both concepts.
Feb 14, 2024, 10:38 AM
|
|
Meanwhile, maybe somebody could tighten Biden's strings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80163
Joined: 11/29/99
|
For many morons in SC, it comes down to removing this:
2
Feb 14, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
Forget, h e l l:
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Bingo. For them, that makes her "not one of us."
Feb 14, 2024, 12:06 PM
|
|
Extra points taken away for being a female minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
People in SC are still free to fly that flag
Feb 14, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
put it on their cars, clothes, wherever.
Do you see a lot of that?
I don't.
It's extremely rare, unless you live around a bunch of white trash.
I'll be generous and say that Haley has the support of 50% of SC's electorate for the sake of illustration.
So "THEM" is the remaining 50%.
You think 50% of the electorate in SC shuns her because the Naval Jack flag was taken off of the state house? That's absurd.
I assure you that all but a very select few Haley detractors don't consider the confederate flag to be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
for "Many"?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:11 PM
[ in reply to For many morons in SC, it comes down to removing this: ] |
|
No way that's more than 1% of the voters in this state.
If you think it's more than that, then put a number on it. What percentage of the people that don't support Haley would say the confederate flag was the primary issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Probably hard to lock down that data
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:23 PM
|
|
That's a very specific poll. But in 2016, only 57 percent of SC white people supported its removal.
That, of course, doesn't mean that would doom Haley with the other 43 percent in any election going forward, but it's a factor for some. I've met those some of those voters. Now is it more than 1 percent in this state? I don't think we could lock down that answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80163
Joined: 11/29/99
|
I'd say at least 10% would put it as one of the primary reasons. But I mostly
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:51 PM
[ in reply to for "Many"? ] |
|
talk to people from Edgefield, so I got that going for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
That seems crazy high... but I believe you.
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:14 PM
|
|
If that's their primary reason for picking Haley over Trump, then they're not too bright.
1. I mean come on... is that really a big deal???
2. You think Mr. NYC Trump would have kept it flying???? Not for a second.
Edgefield. Nice town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24814]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42569
Joined: 7/31/10
|
"Blowing in the wind...Just blown' in the wind..."***
Feb 14, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I think she's great. She's smart, well-spoken, and gets things done.
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
I think she is more moderate, which is a great thing when it comes to uniting people and winning a general election. She annihilates Biden in head-to-head polls.
Trump, on the other hand, could very well lose to Biden. I don't think the Trumpers consider this at all. They seem to be at the point where anyone who isn't Trump is bad/evil/horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: I think she's great. She's smart, well-spoken, and gets things done.
Feb 14, 2024, 4:51 PM
|
|
Nikki is past moderate. Her money is coming from the establishment RINOS and Democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: Question for those who dont like Nikki
Feb 14, 2024, 4:49 PM
|
|
Her and Trumps politics are polar opposites. Nikki is a NeoCon and Trump is a Nationalist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 68
| visibility 401
|
|
|
50
