MAGA-Trump Movement 2021 And Beyond


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Guyau said:

Trump thought that only the Obama addition to Medicare was socialism.

Stephen,

Are you sure about this?

Do you have a quote?

From everything I know about Trump, he  doesn't think in those terms. At least not by default.

He thinks in terms of people getting screwed or people getting a good deal. He thinks like a businessman, not a politician or political philosopher.

After looking at things through that lens (screwed--good deal), he might then go on to think in terms of socialism and so on.

I know him enough to know that, at root, he thinks if people paid for something (whether they were forced to or not), they should receive what they paid for.

And he hates mandates.

And he likes to win.

 

Wait until he understands that Bush Jr's. Big Pharma Medicare con (Part D) was one of the reasons for the consolidation of Big Pharma as corporate royalty above the law. And it ensured nightmare prices for drugs at that. (Profits similar to what Obamacare did for the Insurance industry and, by extension, the Medical Industrial Complex.)

I doubt Trump would ever call that fascism or crony corporatism, but technically speaking it is. I think he will conclude in the end that Medicare Part D, just like immunity from liability, is a Big Pharma--crony government insider con job that screws working people (i.e., producers, although he doesn't use that terminology).

I doubt Trump knows who James Taggart or Wesley Mouch are, but he knows their characteristics as business people and abhors them. It's clear to me that people like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch run Big Pharma.

Trump is getting there, but it's taking time. I think this is because he's a germaphobe and, after the resounding success of "right to try," I think wants Warp Speed to be just as successful. In that context, it's a hard pill to swallow to realize that the jab from Warp Speed was a big con that caused (and still causes)  death and injury to millions of innocents while not protecting them from the COVID virus.

People with egos as big as his find it hard to admit when they have been duped. But Trump is reality-based in his projects and, ultimately, will end up looking at the facts over his desires.

 

As the saying goes, lies do not need to be censored. Only the truth does. And Trump is quite aware of what has been censored without mercy during the last few years right here in the Land of the Free.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I'm not finding a quote. I think it was during the 2020 general election campaign. I raised an eyebrow over it at the time, because it was such a change from the time of Goldwater. What I do find in a google search is controversy that had stirred over some plan Trump floated during that campaign, which could be interpreted as ending SS and Medicare indirectly, although I gather his team disputed that. And of course many of the items in the google search results are on Trump's advice last month that the House Republicans not cut SS or Medicare in their jousts over raising the debt ceiling.

I'm personally not impressed with politicians who want to caution about the US debt, but say nothing about balancing the budget (and I mean right now, not in some mythical ten years that never, never comes) with the focus being on getting in the black year after year, i.e., getting it balanced, rather than emphasis on what they want cut and not cut on the way to balance. The emphasis needs to be on the balanced budget , but really, I'm afraid that emphasis has to be set as a priority by the President, who should send ironed-out budgets back to the House for cutting flatly across all spending so as to bring expenditures into matching expected revenue in the period.

There is something of broader scope I had wanted to mention in the previous post, but forgot. Arguing by putting the label Socialist on programs is a cop-out. The dominant political doctrine we have lived under since FDR is egalitarian liberalism, not Marxism, and the political economy has been a mixed economy. It is egalitarian liberalism and the mixed economy that should be argued against directly by champions of individual freedom and capitalism. To argue merely that egalitarian liberalism and the mixed economy lead to socialism and then argue against socialism does not cut the mustard. It should be learned and bannered what is wrong with egalitarian liberalism of itself and what is wrong (or not best) about the mixed economy. Then one actually is becoming relevant concerning the system we are actually under these many decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guyau said:

The dominant political doctrine we have lived under since FDR is egalitarian liberalism, not Marxism, and the political economy has been a mixed economy.

Stephen,

I see this in a much different manner.

I agree that Marxism is not the right description, but I don't see egalitarian liberalism either.

If fascism is defined as an authoritarian central government with insider crony private-government companies doing the lion's share of the business, I see the USA since FDR headed straight in that direction.

I agree that social mores have become more liberal, but in the recent incarnation, that doctrine is becoming just as authoritarian as the doctrines originally eschewed by the liberals. I cannot call accusation as the only requirement for proof of crime, censorship, mutilation of children, destructive mobs (physical and virtual) being ginned up on a dime and things like that liberal or conservative. And egalitarian is the last word I would use.

 

Whenever I come across dichotomies, I often look for the third option (or fourth and so on).

In the current case, meaning what is the prevailing political doctrine, not just of Trump, but of Biden or Clinton or Bush or Obama, etc., I have come across a researcher (several, actually) who provides one hell of a third alternative that is more effective in physical results that everything else combined: gangsters.

The researcher is a young lady named Whitney Webb. She recently wrote an enormously footnoted two-volume tome called One Nation Under Blackmail. The link (referral) is to volume one.

There are many videos of Whitney being interviewed by people on all sides of all divides and they all sing her praises. Look her up and you will see. 

When I first started becoming familiar with her thesis, I thought it was too simplistic. But she comes with an enormous barrage of original documents, laws and so on. And she shows you where you can look, too. Tons of stuff.

And she has a habit I love. If she doesn't know something, she says so. If she is speculating, she says so. If she is presenting facts you can verify, she says so.

 

Starting in the early years of last century, she said the modern Deep State (including endless wars for profit, assassinations, regime change wars, even parts of the the massive government bureaucracy) began in earnest when the government got in bed with Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky (essentially Murder, Inc.--that was the name of an actual organization) to deal with dock workers.

Basically, the government hired the mob because it could not do certain things under the constitution.

The bribery and blackmail and thuggishness and torture and embezzlement of funds (in different forms)--all ongoing practices of gangsters--appealed to certain types in the government and pretty soon agencies like the FBI and CIA and their progenitors and cousins were doing this covertly in the name of the USA, not just within the country, but all over the world.

Hell, even J Edgar Hoover would not admit the mob existed because they got to him, too.

 

Rather than go on about this, here are three recent interviews from different political orientations, going into millions of views, so you can see for yourself.

 

 

 

The headlines focus on current scandals (probably to get clicks), but Whitney's research goes way deeper.

I am reading her two books, but they run over a thousand pages, so I still have a ways to go. At least her writing style is clear.

 

In general, this reign of thugs is not about socialism or democracy or Marxism versus capitalism, social liberalism versus Christian conservatism, woke culture versus all the other cultures, racism, Wall Street money games, Democrat, Republican, whatever. It's all good for them because they fleece and intimidate everyone. 

And if you get out of line and in their crosshairs, no matter who you are, they kill you. Ask the Kennedy brothers. Or in more current times, Jeffrey Epstein and the different Bitcoin billionaires who are dropping (among many others). Lot's of people are dying by suicide these days. The preferred method is by hanging with a shotgun blast to the back of the head. I mean, these suicide practitioners really really really want to kill themselves...

:) 

The organized crime people see wealth produced, or even just accumulated, and they go and take it.

Money, power and sex rule their appetites.

 

Gangsterism is not the only main government problem. There are others. But gangsterism counts as one of the main ones, maybe it's the biggest, and I never noticed this before I started listening to Whitney's videos, then reading her. Ditto for people like James Corbin, the people at the Rising Tide Foundation, James Lindsay, Catherine Fitts, and so on. Each person has a particular focus and they sometimes dazzle you and other times go in odd directions. But these people are heavy thinkers.

And, from what I have seen so far, they can't be bought to present things they don't believe in.

 

As to Trump thinking only Obamacare is socialism, you will not find a quote. But you will probably find plenty of articles from the fake news media saying this (or something similar) is true according to someone close to the issue who overheard a telephone call.

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Consistent with what I recall hearing is this excerpt from 2020 State of the Union Address:

 

“I’ve also made an ironclad pledge to American families: We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.  And we will always protect your Medicare and we will always protect your Social Security.  Always.

. . .

“But as we work to improve Americans’ healthcare, there are those who want to take away your healthcare, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely.

. . .

“One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our healthcare system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million very happy Americans.  To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American healthcare.

“ Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded healthcare to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders.  These proposals would raid the Medicare benefits of our seniors and that our seniors depend on, while acting as a powerful lure for illegal immigration.  That is what is happening in California and other states.  Their systems are totally out of control, costing taxpayers vast and unaffordable amounts of money."

These remarks do not address Obamacare, unlike the remark I recall him making off the cuff. They do suggest that Social Security and Medicare are not socialism. 

The book One Nation under Blackmail looks like a fascinating read. The part about Thomas Dewey shown in the Introduction reminded me of a story my older sister likes to tell of her childhood. She was born in 1940. Her first memory of a Presidential election was between Truman and Dewey. She favored Dewey, because he had a moustache, and she was a fan of Clark Gable. It's an angle. 

Towards knowledge of egalitarian liberalism and its libertarian responses:

Philosophy, Politics, and Economics

John Rawls

Free Market Fairness

On the mixed economy v. capitalism, historically informed, the Greenspan/Woolridge book Capitalism in America has been good so far as I've been able to dip into it. As you know, my study and writing time is consumed with areas of philosophy not political. I've a lot of books to get into my mind in those areas, as you can imagine. I produced a paper last year (about seven months of work) titled "Kant versus Rand – Much No to Walsh and Miller" that will appear this April in Reason Papers, which is now a journal free and online. I am now completing a study complementing that one. So, back to that just now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was 'taught' that the last and greatest gangster was Al Capone and that he was so single-handedly adept , ruthless and dastardly that he was able to evade the justice due to him by dint of his nefariousness coupled with the necessary evil in the 'justice /court system' and overall jurisprudence of the American way that allowed for criminals to escape punishment by the virtue of the 'system' closely abiding its inherent rule to not abuse power in anyway that would result in a possible unintended violation of rights or principles. So 'they' got him in the end by 'shrewdly' applying civil penalties eg tax evasion , which produced the desired result of removing the menace from society and ending his criminal empire.

This approach, on its face and with no real exploring by me, seems to perhaps have had the effect of shielding others who may have participated and benefited from Capone's enterprise. His career spanned many years and involved many jurisdictions, meaning countless others had to cooperate or at least acquiesce to his doings. But , it seems, by going after him personally via tax laws those various activities did not need to be (?) adjudicated , the government only needed to prove the non payment of taxes in relation to his wealth was so egregious that incarceration was a just punishment. 

I'm starting to get the sense that this dynamic is also entwined in the history of corporate governess and laws of incorporation , perhaps radicals for capitalism in the Randian vein especially have been apologist for this structure. If 'everyone' 'owns' via stock holdings a corporation , then effectively 'no-one' owns it and therefore no One is ever able to be held to account for personal responsibility.

If Harvey P. Fizer is the recognized sole owner of say.. a pharma company , he would have a huge incentive to make sure the products he develops or is commissioned to produce are safe and effective, corporations with thousands or hundreds of thousands 'owners' via stock an entity and the 'entity' is involved with even unknowingly distributing a dangerous product , well it ain't really any One's fault , yeah ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See also "Boss Tweed" and Tammany Hall...
 

tammany hall
 

noun

  1. a political organization within the Democratic Party in New York City (late 1800's and early 1900's) seeking political control by corruption and bossism


Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was a New York City political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789 as the Tammany Society. It became the main local political machine of the Democratic Party, and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics

Tammany_Hall_logo_crop.jpg
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guyau said:

 

Consistent with what I recall hearing is this excerpt from 2020 State of the Union Address:

 

“I’ve also made an ironclad pledge to American families: We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.  And we will always protect your Medicare and we will always protect your Social Security.  Always.

. . .

“But as we work to improve Americans’ healthcare, there are those who want to take away your healthcare, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely.

. . .

“One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our healthcare system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million very happy Americans.  To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American healthcare.

“ Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded healthcare to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders.  These proposals would raid the Medicare benefits of our seniors and that our seniors depend on, while acting as a powerful lure for illegal immigration.  That is what is happening in California and other states.  Their systems are totally out of control, costing taxpayers vast and unaffordable amounts of money."

These remarks do not address Obamacare, unlike the remark I recall him making off the cuff. They do suggest that Social Security and Medicare are not socialism. 

The book One Nation under Blackmail looks like a fascinating read. The part about Thomas Dewey shown in the Introduction reminded me of a story my older sister likes to tell of her childhood. She was born in 1940. Her first memory of a Presidential election was between Truman and Dewey. She favored Dewey, because he had a moustache, and she was a fan of Clark Gable. It's an angle. 

Towards knowledge of egalitarian liberalism and its libertarian responses:

Philosophy, Politics, and Economics

John Rawls

Free Market Fairness

On the mixed economy v. capitalism, historically informed, the Greenspan/Woolridge book Capitalism in America has been good so far as I've been able to dip into it. As you know, my study and writing time is consumed with areas of philosophy not political. I've a lot of books to get into my mind in those areas, as you can imagine. I produced a paper last year (about seven months of work) titled "Kant versus Rand – Much No to Walsh and Miller" that will appear this April in Reason Papers, which is now a journal free and online. I am now completing a study complementing that one. So, back to that just now.

 

Healthcare systems can be State run, quasi-state run, or completely private, as a system.  A completely "free market system" would still be a system.

So I see Trump's words as giving no indication of his reference to Medicare or Social Security as socialism... but I see no real problems with that.

 

There must be a way to address the difference between:

A) regulation and complete control of a government offered system in a particular sphere with no freedom to provide or receive the same products/services privately: effectively nationalization of an entire sector

B) heavy regulation and control (quasi nationalization) of all goods and services associated with a particular sphere.. making it a state run scheme with essentially state actors, beacure so-called private actors are under the thumb of government 

C) regulation and complete control of a government offered system in a particular sphere but with relatively unregulated freedom for private providers and consumers to trade - BUT with no tax rebates for those who do not participate in the government system

D) regulation and complete control of a government offered system in a particular sphere but with relatively unregulated freedom of private providers and consumers to trade - with tax rebates for those who do not participate in the government system

E)  mere "redistribution" of wealth for some to gain "access" to certain kinds of products/services entirely provided in a relatively unregulated sphere of the free market.

 

I would place Socialism mostly in categories A-C, (and only perhaps partly in D) but not E.  D and E of course are part of a mixed economy system and stem from an emotional tendency toward communitarianism or socialism.  Such sentimentality is aimed at so called "redistribution" of some wealth in a free system, without wholly undermining what that wealth or the free system are, i.e. without overbearing and overarching control or the "breaking into obedience" of either (which would occur in category A).

 

From what I understand Medicare or Medicaid and Social Security, as originally conceived, and as correctly construed, fell (and should fall) into category E, and thus is not Socialism, even if it is not free market capitalism... right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Guyau said:

SL,

No, the notable thing about Pres. Trump in this was that he implied that Social Security and Medicare were NOT socialism, at odds with the perspective from Sen. Goldwater and other conservatives after him. (Did you make a typo?)

No typo.

Category E, doesn't seem like Socialism to me.  It's a part of a mixed economy system. 

As such.. Trump's position is conceptually speaking not so notable.  Am I wrong? 

 

No Ad Hominem, but didn't Peikoff himself distinguish between Socialism and a mixed economic system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example of E would be the progressive income tax (at least were there no exemptions). And though progressives and socialists at the time of its beginning would have favored it, I agree that that is not socialism.) It would be part of egalitarian liberalism, I'd say.)

I think your graduated list is helpful for seriously thinking about socialism, mixed economy, and mere free-market, or capitalism. I notice that Greenspan's book on capitalism labels the American period 1776–1860 as "a commercial republic." The period 1865–1914, he calls the "the triumph of capitalism" in America. I notice that he and others make a distinction between capitalism and laissez faire capitalism. So, many, when they use the word "capitalism," mean something wider than laissez faire or "pure" capitalism. That makes it a little more delicate to make distinctions between capitalism and socialism.

Greenspan takes the revolt against laissez-faire to be inaugurated in Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1896. President Cleveland (1885–89, 1893–97) had to answer his own telephone and open his own front door. Federal Reserve, Income tax, and the many Departments of today not concerned with national defense did not yet exist. Financially, the federal government was overshadowed by giant corporations. I'd say that Bryan's speech was really the shot across the bow of small federal government in periods of no war.

An industry that is challenging to fit into the various slot of your gradations, SL, is provision of electric power. When I was a child, we dreamed that in the future, people would all have revolutionary sources of electricity independently generated right at their house. But that has not eventuated. Central production and vast system of distribution is still the necessary way, given that no such hoped-for revolution in power production came about such as we had imagined of the future. As we came to and continue in The Age of Electricity, some governments took up the job of supplying that utility service itself. Even the private ones such as I worked for had received much aid on the distribution side by invoking the US government power of eminent domain in the US Constitution. When it came to nuclear generation, the US considered having it done by the federal government. But we went with private, commercial nuclear power production in general. For public safety against radioactivity, we have close federal regulation of nuclear plant design, construction, and operations. That regulation is good, at least since TMI, when NRC replaced AEC. That is, it is effective, and I think necessary, for public safety. Unfortunately the processes necessary for our level of safety (the plant San Onofre on the Pacific in California would have survived the tidal wave that hit Fukushima in Japan, due to our more extreme design-basis-accident of plants (in this case, giving the CA plant a higher sea wall and emergency diesel-electric engines on elevated land, safe from flooding) eats up all the economy of the tremendous neutron energy deliverable for making steam by fission that we had envisioned in the 1950's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Guyau said:

An example of E would be the progressive income tax (at least were there no exemptions). And though progressives and socialists at the time of its beginning would have favored it, I agree that that is not socialism.) It would be part of egalitarian liberalism, I'd say.)

I think your graduated list is helpful for seriously thinking about socialism, mixed economy, and mere free-market, or capitalism. I notice that Greenspan's book on capitalism labels the American period 1776–1860 as "a commercial republic." The period 1865–1914, he calls the "the triumph of capitalism" in America. I notice that he and others make a distinction between capitalism and laissez faire capitalism. So, many, when they use the word "capitalism," mean something wider than laissez faire or "pure" capitalism. That makes it a little more delicate to make distinctions between capitalism and socialism.

Greenspan takes the revolt against laissez-faire to be inaugurated in Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1896. President Cleveland (1885–89, 1893–97) had to answer his own telephone and open his own front door. Federal Reserve, Income tax, and the many Departments of today not concerned with national defense did not yet exist. Financially, the federal government was overshadowed by giant corporations. I'd say that Bryan's speech was really the shot across the bow of small federal government in periods of no war.

An industry that is challenging to fit into the various slot of your gradations, SL, is provision of electric power. When I was a child, we dreamed that in the future, people would all have revolutionary sources of electricity independently generated right at their house. But that has not eventuated. Central production and vast system of distribution is still the necessary way, given that no such hoped-for revolution in power production came about such as we had imagined of the future. As we came to and continue in The Age of Electricity, some governments took up the job of supplying that utility service itself. Even the private ones such as I worked for had received much aid on the distribution side by invoking the US government power of eminent domain in the US Constitution. When it came to nuclear generation, the US considered having it done by the federal government. But we went with private, commercial nuclear power production in general. For public safety against radioactivity, we have close federal regulation of nuclear plant design, construction, and operations. That regulation is good, at least since TMI, when NRC replaced AEC. That is, it is effective, and I think necessary, for public safety. Unfortunately the processes necessary for our level of safety (the plant San Onofre on the Pacific in California would have survived the tidal wave that hit Fukushima in Japan, due to our more extreme design-basis-accident of plants (in this case, giving the CA plant a higher sea wall and emergency diesel-electric engines on elevated land, safe from flooding) eats up all the economy of the tremendous neutron energy deliverable for making steam by fission that we had envisioned in the 1950's.

Central distribution is not the only way, certainly not only government owned infrastructure.  With agreed to industry standards wireless and cellular communications have not needed to be nationalized.

If markets are set free I have every belief alternatives to central management and monopoly (govt) will become available

I think electric vehicles one day (prior to technology allowing reasonable recharge times) should have accessible (with appropriate security) battery packs which are standard.  A robot refueler ( at a refueling station) would do a diagnostic test on a set (reasonable) number of a vehicles battery packs and any of them are weak and qualifies otherwise as in good condition they is simply swapped with fully charged battery packs.  The discharged pack would go into a queue while being recharged…. ownership of these units could be structured as rented from an energy providing consortium or some such…. anyhow we need to be careful of ruling things can only be done one way because we simply don’t think of alternatives which a free market often could provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Guyau said:

... the notable thing about Pres. Trump in this was that he implied that Social Security and Medicare were NOT socialism...

Stephen,

This is one of those cases where I believe Trump is not thinking in terms of a dichotomy (socialism or not socialism). His frame is that people paid into SS and they had Medicare foisted on them and paid for it, so they should not get screwed when its time to receive what was promised.

In this context, when he disparages socialism, I don't think he is talking as a political philosopher, but instead as a person identifying a threat of big government takeover and bullying. And living up to the terms of a deal.

If he were given a blank slate to design society, I seriously doubt he would opt for government controlled retirement or government controlled health care.

But the blank slate only exists as an abstraction. In reality, money was confiscated.

And when government involvement is necessary, like with the military, look what he did to clean up the veteran's hospitals (which had become a bloated scam where vets died waiting or served with useless poor quality service so insiders could skim).

I'm not being a stickler on this to defend Trump. It's because I think it is important to identify correctly.

How many times have you been characterized by others proclaiming what you really think and feel when the person talking is way off the mark and you don't think and feel anything near what he or she was talking about?

I appreciate you referring to Trump's speech (and in context). That makes this discussion based on accurate input.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is one of those cases where I believe Trump is not thinking in terms of a dichotomy (socialism or not socialism). His frame is that people paid into SS and they had Medicare foisted on them and paid for it, so they should not get screwed when its time to receive what was promised.

Perfectly clear. Well said.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Finally the biggest cognitive dissonance in MAGA-land has been resolved.

Man, was this a long time in coming.

Kellyanne Conway Finally Divorces “Extremely Unattractive Loser” Lincoln Project’s George Conway – President Trump Responds

 

I never use terms like misogyny to characterize parties to marriage and I have no reason to use it here except as a gut feeling. 

I think George Conway never got over his wife's achievement that he will never be able to equal, that is managing the election of a US President.

He's a crony corporatist asshole and I think he let Kellyanne become Trump's campaign manager because he was certain that Trump would lose. That way he could still be big poppa patting her on the back, going. "There, there, life just isn't fair, but I'll take care of everything." And then going off to his warmongering asshole Lincoln Project colleagues to fleece some more suckers through public monies schemes

Then Trump won and Kellyanne grabbed the big brass ring of making history, whereas it was evident that a corrupt evil man like him would never get near that level of achievement.

So he tried to destroy Trump, more to besmirch Kellyanne's achievement than to oppose Trump per se, although there was some of that, too.

I think this guy is a misogynist in his heart. A bigot.

In his words, he probably isn't, but I like to look at what a person says as opposed to what he does. And what he did to his wife is about as misogynistic as it gets.

Besides, to me he always looked like Jackie Gleason on a bad day in search of a mullet and never finding it...

:) 

Michael

  • Smile 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Trumps's best speeches happened at CPAC a little earlier today.

Here's the whole thing.

In his account on Rumble.

4Xhxi.qR4e-small-LIVE-President-Donald-T
RUMBLE.COM

President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland on March 3rd, 2023...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Whew!

It looks like Trump dodged a bullet.

Who knows what could have happened had Hogan run.

:evil: 

Michael

Lolllll! One Govenor down and Governor DeSantis shall stand down shortly, or get trounced by Trump begore the convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Mitchell, a RINO-leaning radio dude who has left the Trump Train for DeSantis, tried to be cute and make a loaded metaphor poll.

And like a boomerang, it flew right back and whopped him in the face.

He said America has cancer, Trump is a hammer and DeSantis is a scalpel. Which instrument do you want your doctor to use?

Most of the people voted "hammer."

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 

Here is the link since there are still 16 hours left. So it may change if the RINOs organize and do a Predator Class thingie.

But here is the screenshot and Mitchell's sour grapes comment to the outcome as it stands so far.

image.png

btw - I voted in this poll.

It kinda goes like this. When you are made of meat and you see a warmongering Predator Class dude itching to do some cutting, you'll take the hammer over a scalpel.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It keeps on rolling.

oK7zkTvJ5iij_640x360.jpg
WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

President Donald J. Trump speaking in Davenport, Iowa on March 13, 2023. I do not own the rights to this video. I'm just putting up another upload of this awesome speech. The Bearded...

The media tries to portray it that Trump is going away.

Use your own eyes and ears.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people in New York are hell-bent on giving Trump the 2024 election without him having to work for it.

Donald Trump Says He’ll Be Arrested on Tuesday amid Manhattan DA Probe

AP23051804002195.png
WWW.BREITBART.COM

Former President Donald Trump said Saturday he expects to be arrested Tuesday based on "illegal leaks" from the Manhattan district attorney.

It's about the idiot Stormy Daniels case.

 

There are four main thoughts I have on this.

1. The arrest, if it happens, is essentially a perp walk photo-op. For those dreaming that Trump will be Epsteined while in jail, I don't think he will be in there long enough for anything like that to happen. I'm pretty sure the Secret Service will not allow anything bad to happen under their watch.

2. Trump himself could not engineer a better publicity stunt than his enemies are providing him. I predict that the backlash from the American public, a public that goes to war over patriotic-sounding jingoes, will be massive. Americans do not want to see US presidents jailed, especially not over lawfare. This sentiment comes from the same patriotism that the propagandists tap into for going to war. Except they are aiming the wrath right at themselves.

Lots and lots of people, famous and not, are saying that if this arrest happens, it will result in a landslide victory for Trump sight unseen.

3. This whole thing looks a lot like the Predator Class setting up a violent false flag event. They are dreaming for another "Reichstag Fire" chance like J6. And some of them are batshit crazy. If the arrest happens, I would not be surprised to see a false flag attempted assassination against someone prominent among the Dems, even Biden.

4. Here is something nobody is thinking about. If the Predator Class does this arrest, they will be setting a precedent that will make it more than doable to get Biden and his entire crew into prison once Trump is back in the White House. And they will give Trump a perfect reason to not hesitate like he did with Hillary Clinton. Or, should something happen to Trump along the way to reelection (illness, etc.), any MAGA person who wins the presidency will have this precedent front and center in their thinking as they go after Biden and the Deep State.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vivek doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination, but he got my attention with these two tweets.

I like what I heard.

and

It's too early to say if he could ever fill Trump's shoes post-Trump (and yes, I am more pro-Trump than ever), but I am going to keep an eye on him.

His principled stance is the only one that is proper in my values.

Had he come out openly supporting Trump, I would have thought him an opportunist. But supporting the American system as it is supposed to work, thus calling for an end to the political-judicial persecution of Trump, and going against the advice of his political advisors to stay silent to boot, he is now on my radar as one of the good guys for real.

Right on, Vivek.

:)

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All’s quiet on the southeastern front.

Nate Cohn Sat, March 18, 2023 at 10:23 AM EDT It’s been a tough few months for Ron DeSantis. Donald Trump and his allies have blasted him as “Meatball Ron,” “Ron DeSanctimonious,” a “groomer,” disloyal and a supporter of cutting entitlement programs. Now, he’s getting criticism from many mainstream conservatives for calling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “territorial dispute.” Is all of this making a difference in the polls? There are signs the answer is yes. In surveys taken since the Trump offensive began two months ago, DeSantis, the Florida governor, has steadily lost ground against Trump, whose own numbers have increased . . . . end quote

Sssshhh, Nikki Haley. Like DeSantis, people will need to remember how to spell your name.

From The Hill: Trump holds a 4-point lead over Biden, with 46 percent saying they would support the former president in a rematch in 2024 and 42 percent saying they would back the current president, the Emerson College poll found. However, Biden leads DeSantis by 4 points, 44 percent to 40 percent, and Haley by 3 points, 40 percent to 37 percent, in separate match-ups, according to the poll. While Haley announced her campaign earlier this month, DeSantis has yet to officially launch a 2024 bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I like DeSantis and I believe Trump does, too.

But look at who is now funding him.

The endless war for profit people. The people who keep lying to the public, screwing the middle class, sending kids from the middle class and poor class off to die in wars at places they could not find on a map before, and embezzling money on a scale never before seen in human history.

That, more than anything, is fueling the rift between him and MAGA people.

Ron needs to check some premises if he wants to stay a darling of the MAGA crowd.

It won't be mean name-calling on Truth Social that will take him down. It will be him selling out for the money. He needs to stop that shit yesterday. I would hate to see him turn into a RINO neocon, but that is exactly where he is headed.

Right now he can fix this. He won't be able to after the rattle snake he is petting and calling honey-pie bites him and the people who admired him before turn their backs on him so much they won't even take him to the doctor.

 

Wanna see the start of the bite?

Look at who is displeased that Ron wants peace in Ukraine.

It's the Republican people in on this:

image.png

 

image.png

Ron can't take that money and stay MAGA.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now