metalslug

Are you kidding? 4 years ago was perhaps the best part of this. Biden picked Harris as VP in a masterstroke of long term Dem capitulation. A downside is that this forum is unlikely to still be here by 2028 to see how this works out.

Alright then; back to positive polling news; A poll released by Puck News/Echelon Insights "found that 41 percent of likely Democratic voters would vote for Harris to be on the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028". If Trump can hold it together for 4 years, even if the improvement is small, then Republicans are set again.

You're still trying to sell that argument even after your own electorate saw it for the bullshit that it is? Barely two posts back you had claimed that Biden's administration had lowered illegal migration by 75% even though that bill did not pass. How did he do that? ..because the bill was never needed, it was BS legislation purely for the purpose of misdirecting blame after the proverbial horse had bolted. Executive orders were already in place when Biden took office. He could have left them in place. He did not. Your electorate knows this. It's also somewhat laughable that anyone can even spitball that 75% figure since the current administration have only a vague estimate of how many migrants they have let in.

I agree, since these were small populations relative to the world population, although you're still on a slippery slope there. Extremism remains largely subjective. You can collectively pool all the 'liberal' countries of the world and say "These nations see Republicans as extremists!" and someone else can pool together Italy, Argentina, perhaps Canada soon and possibly some 'enemy of the West' countries and say "These nations think liberals are extremists!". The traditional use of the word 'extremist' should, IMO, be used in a context of a small minority outlook, so as to avoid conflating white hoods and raised salutes with mainstream conservatives and likewise conflating violent left radicals with mainstream liberals.

I don't believe than any of us here realistically think they would actually do that or achieve that even if they tried to. Trump is known to speak in wild exaggerations and I doubt that Musk got to where he has in the world by being a lunatic. Do you remember when some liberals were suggesting that Biden should resign early so that Harris can 'mess with the MAGA minds'? These cabinet appointments and related hyperbole are Trump's "hold my beer" moment. The size of government has too much inertia to move it fast enough over the next four years.

Yes. That's precisely my point. Mainstream and extremist are mutually exclusive. The recent election outcome thereby provides argument that liberals may now been termed 'extremist' as less than half voted against it.

It's gobsmacking that you can't see how absurd your statement is. Who do think has been running your country for the last four years? WTF do you think has been happening during the first three of those years? It's like breaking the dam, flooding the valley below, then rebuilding 75% of the wall and asking to be given credit for it.

"75% of social security" ? Do you have a citation for that from a Republican source? Allowing a massive amount of illegal migrants into the country can be seen as an extremist position. 'Hey Presto' - All liberals are extremists! (See how easy that was?) I'm not thrilled with some of his ideas either, although the term 'extremism' is still subject to evidence that these ideas are not mainstream for the current electorate. I've not yet seen you present that.

By mainstream Islamic beliefs; Al Queda are considered extremists even by most Islamic believers as extremists are most commonly regarded as having opinions significantly different from mainstream thought. Trump and his followers are a significantly larger group than Al Queada and could now be considered as mainstream since the election, or at least no more 'extreme' than liberals are. We can perhaps reasonably assume that not all Republicans are Trump supporters even if they voted for Trump (in so far as they voted for Republican policies) although we cannot reliably know where that percentage lies. Calling them extremists is opinion and if you'd like to portray that as fact then the burden of proof is on you.

All of them? Do you have actual evidence of that? Sworn statements or MAGA hats on each one? ...In as much as all violent Antifa and BLM rioters are considered to be liberals?

You're having a hissy fit over something that has not even happened yet. I'm fine to concede that it's unlikely that I will ever know if these future pardons had airtight convictions, rather like I could state that I would be disappointed if there was match fixing at the next superbowl, even without seeing evidence that match fixing occurred.

"condemned totally." was the phrase Trumped used with regard to the supremacists, therefore not an unusual narrative to follow. Should we dump all liberals in with the few violent Antifa and BLM rioters too?

Indeed I have. Therefore no need for you to infer or invent additional nonsense.

But here in the real world, what I actually said was that Trump supporters are very unlikely to agree that they are 'in bed with' extremists and are even less likely to care that anyone here might believe that they are. If your extrapolation of that opinion results in myself being an extremist then go have fun with that. You only have this forum to convince.

Almost as cute as your belief that the convictions could not possibly have been prejudiced by location and circumstance. Yourself and jakee; having issues with what has not even happened yet. If it reliably and objectively emerges later that Trump single-handedly decided each pardon without a team or without much scrutiny then you're welcome to reaffirm your point. With perhaps very few exceptions; every president who has ever issued a pardon undermines the justice system in some way and is ultimately done so on the subjective opinion of that president or advisors whom he trusts. While we both may yet disapprove of some of the pardons to come, Trump would not be the only president to have exercised that prerogative.

?? How could we possibly know that answer? Have the full transcripts of those meetings with Trump been publicly shared?

Then by all means; go with what I post here and not with what I seem to post here. In doing so the premise of your questions would be less flawed.

Many aspects of reality seem different to you. Not much I can do about that.

Let's see what you and I actually said... ..to which I said.. It was indeed myself who would wish to check the minutia but I do not have the access, role or legal training to do so. There was nothing in my reply that claimed what Trump's team would do but rather only what they could do in their position. With regard to the existence of an actual 'team' at all; his spokesperson Karoline Leavitt indicated that pardons would be on a 'case-by-case basis' and it's my own opinion , on probability, that Trump will not take time out to personally peruse each case, hence the very likely delegation to a team due to the volume of cases to examine and expertise required.

Since it's a rather uniquely liberal minority opinion that they are "in bed with" extremists, I suspect they don't really give a shit that you think so. You might as well call them 'garbage' and 'deplorables'. That tactic seemed to work last time.

And just like that... Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, just a few days after the other Joe (wearing his November 2020 smile) invited Trump to the White House. Who would have guessed they would warm up to a nazi so fast? Anthony Rota did not fare as well.

....or you could choose to be aware his actual statement instead. Keep selling your preferred narrative to this echo chamber. I'm sure someone here believes you.

This quoted media statement, as I wrote it, is indeed true; “We have come to a dangerous line,” Putin told the Valdai discussion club in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day after learning that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election." Putin did say that during the indicated timing although I will concede that the sentiment of "dangerous" cannot exclusively be tied to animosity against Trump and I'll further concede that the term "liberal" was indeed used in an earlier part of that speech. It has long been a favourite accusation from the left that Trump and Putin are "thick as thieves", conspiring in elections and laptops and whatever other scare narrative might hit home when there was in truth much more actual evidence, and subsequent FEC fines, that Democrats were conspiring with Russian sources. It's also true that for Trump to meet his election promise of "ending the war" will inevitably mean that Putin gets a win, although with the alternative being a never-ending river of US money pouring into that war, Trump appears to be seeking a pragmatic outcome to a war that started on Biden's watch. I don't hear the left railing against Europe and rest of NATO for not throwing their own billions into that war. It's more convenient to blame your domestic political enemy.

?? If she was intent on pardoning all of them and had not expressly stated (either personally or via a spokesperson) that such a commission would exist then I should indeed assume there's no commission at all, which is not what Trumps's team said regarding their intended process. Beyond that; the strawman scope of pardons that you describe above would go down so well with the electorate majority so as to ensure Republican victories for the next 20 years or more. I doubt she would gift them that circumstance.

Perhaps the same standard presented to jurors who convicted people of colour in the Southern states? Would that work for you? This from the guy who, in that very same thread, affirmed this statement three times; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is." And you wonder why I lose interest in your debates.