Talking about "standing for something?"

What does Trump stand for?

1) Trump's a convicted felon.

2) He goaded hardcore supporters into an insurrectionary
assault on the capitol to impede the peaceful transfer
of power. He's never conceded he lost.

3) A judge found accusations of rape against him to be
"substantially true".

4) He has a long history of racism.

5) He was impeached by the House of Representatives.

6) He allegedly had nuclear secrets in his bathroom.

7) He was ejected from office amid the disaster of his
COVID response.

8) He has promised violence and retribution if he's returned.

9) Trump rejects the norms of American politics.

And there's much more.

These are just some of the extensive long list of complaints
of Trump's inadequacies for the role of president.

In short, the man defies every expectation about what a US
president should be. He's also a liar, preaches falsehoods,
is unstable, unpredictable, a conman, and worse.

" Madam President", would have been so great.
Instead - they got - "Madman President".

He and his supporters, reject a diverse,
modern, and equal future. Their movement is explicitly built upon
rejection. This is sadly something that's currently gripping tens of
millions of Americans.
And, this is something that all of America's allies
and adversaries have to face.

There are broader implications.

Sadly, these will unfold with time.

All we can do is hope that American democracy will have
enough protections built into its constitution to survive.

All of the given information in my previous post has been
taken from the research of University of Melbourne and
other sources.

" But as some have said - that's "old news",
and Trump is more interested in what is being said today
about him."

Yeah I heard the Labor surrogates on The Insiders say that as well. I think they were trying to convince themselves rather than the viewers....they failed.

The difference between Rudd and, say, Vance is that the later addressed his previous comments full on and explained why he'd seen the light. Rudd ran like the man of no-conviction that he is and, by just deleting the posts, hoped to hide in untruth. And the left's flying monkey's are fine with that.

"" Madam President", would have been so great.
Instead - they got - "Madman President"."

I'm still trying to work out which is the more deranged. Someone who can write that or someone who thinks its worth repeating. I think Foxy wins though because she also thinks that this type of thing is providing her with unbiased analysis. How bonkers is that?

This from Jon Stewart might help Foxy cope.... http://twitter.com/i/status/1854659433609281915

She should note the part where he says.. "I was wrong". If Foxy could ever managed to sincerely say that, she'd be on the road to redemption.

mhaze,

I'd like to sincerely thank you for all your posts.
This forum would be such a boring place without you.
Your posts keep me busy - looking for
facts that totally disprove your strong opinions.
Facts that you choose to ignore - facts that are
available on media outlets - newspapers, radio, TV,
blogs, websites and social media.

However, if you feel that my sources and posts are
biased, you can try reading a wider variety of
other media sources. It may help and broaden your
outlook.

"you can try reading a wider variety of
other media sources. It may help and broaden your
outlook."

I've been telling you this for years and now you exclaim it likes a revelation. Quite the chutzpah.

"Your posts keep me busy - looking for
facts that totally disprove your strong opinions."

Well keep looking....you might find one sometime. Who knows, you might yet prove that the Al Aqsa Hospital wasn't bombed by Hamas, or that there were no tunnels under it. You might find that the Electoral College never gets updated as you claimed. All the mistakes you've made over the years, you might find a fact, just one, to right those myriad wrongs. But I wouldn't hold my breathe.

"you can try reading a wider variety of
other media sources."

I do, that's how I always know you assertions (claims without facts) are rubbish.

So off you go Foxy, try broadening your outlook. But somehow I doubt it. I used to hold high hopes that you would see the light rather than the tunnel, but somehow I now feel that's beyond you.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

That’s a very impressive list of defects that have been attributed to the incoming president, and rightly so.

But I think it is also true that he possesses some exceptionally remarkable talents. Who could have imagined that despite all those defects, the majority of Americans would prefer him as president rather than Kamala Harris, the incumbent vice-president and highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, a perfectly honourable person whose reputation is beyond criticism ?

Trump, the bad guy, won the confidence of his countrymen. Harris, the good guy, did not.

But that’s not the end of the story.

Batten down the hatches – a storm is brewing !

On the international scene, a Pew Research poll published in June 2024 indicates :

« Across 34 countries surveyed, a median of 28% are confident in Trump; 69% are not. (The survey was conducted before Trump’s conviction in a state criminal trial in New York.)

Majorities in Canada and across Europe say they have no confidence in Trump. More than eight-in-ten adults hold this view in France, Germany and Sweden.

Trump also receives poor assessments in Latin America, where at least six-in-ten in every country surveyed – including 86% in Mexico – do not have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs.

There are more varied views of Trump in other regions of the world.

Roughly half or more in Ghana, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines and Thailand express confidence in him. But large majorities in a few Asia-Pacific countries do not, including 79% in Australia. And in the Middle East-North Africa region, large majorities in Tunisia and Turkey view him negatively. ».

The maggot is in the apple. We'll see what comes out.

.