The end of democracy because he has specifically outlined anti-democratic plans and said he plans to be a dictator. Nobody has said anything about killing children (typical straw man argument). Trump has several criminal charges pending so in fact could go to jail. Hitler is a legit comparison in several ways, as is Mussolini. Do your research on these guys and what their early statements and actions were. It was a slow steady escalation that nobody thought could or would happen. So nobody is overreacting or hysterical. This is all factually based. If you have factually based and logical arguments why Trump should be our next president, please, we are eager to hear.
Michael Beschloss said Trump would jail and kill “our children”. This kind of rhetoric is dangerous. What would you do to stop Hitler and his followers?
The end of democracy is not rhetoric. It's an argument based on Trump's actions and words. Same with the parallels to early 1930s Germany. Both are based on facts. Are they wrong? Then make the counterargument also based on facts.
And I've encountered many in the pro-Trump camp who insist Democrats are baby-eating demon worshippers who only win elections by stealing and are hellbent on destroying the USA. Specifics please. What specifically have the Bulwark writers said that makes you support Trump?
You misunderstand. I supported Trump from when Cruz dropped out. I still support him. My point is that the crazy rhetoric of the never merely confirms us in our support of him. And no, you’ve never heard a conservative call you a baby-eater.
It’s just a tedious debate. It’s not interesting. And probably no longer applicable. It is now conservative to defend the 60-year/old sexual revolution. I am now firmly anyone who wants to upend the institutions that have betrayed us. Trump gets this. Maybe Bobby Kennedy does.
OK, two questions then: 1. Who is "us" in "they betrayed us"? 2. How did they betray that "us"? I will remind you that to betray means to "expose (one's country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy."
Trump is not a conservative. He is off the spectrum of right versus left. He is an authoritarian, which is on a different spectrum. He just happens to have hijacked a previously conservative party. The Cheneys are conservative and have not been destroyed. I would vote for Liz in a heartbeat. Your comments are not grounded in logic, reason, or evidence. You seem to have joined just to poke your finger in the eyes of those you view as libs (most of us are not). We welcome reasoned debate but that’s not what you bring. You would likely be happier elsewhere.
Can you point out examples of the "nuts" and "dangerous" rhetoric?
The end of democracy! He’s going to jail or kill our children! Hitler! Mussolini! Please.
The end of democracy because he has specifically outlined anti-democratic plans and said he plans to be a dictator. Nobody has said anything about killing children (typical straw man argument). Trump has several criminal charges pending so in fact could go to jail. Hitler is a legit comparison in several ways, as is Mussolini. Do your research on these guys and what their early statements and actions were. It was a slow steady escalation that nobody thought could or would happen. So nobody is overreacting or hysterical. This is all factually based. If you have factually based and logical arguments why Trump should be our next president, please, we are eager to hear.
If by "several criminal charges" you mean 91 documented felonies. . .
We're feeding a troll here.
Michael Beschloss said Trump would jail and kill “our children”. This kind of rhetoric is dangerous. What would you do to stop Hitler and his followers?
Trump did say, he would support the on sight shooting of shoplifters....more hyperbole I'm sure.
The end of democracy is not rhetoric. It's an argument based on Trump's actions and words. Same with the parallels to early 1930s Germany. Both are based on facts. Are they wrong? Then make the counterargument also based on facts.
Rhetoric does not require facts.
And I've encountered many in the pro-Trump camp who insist Democrats are baby-eating demon worshippers who only win elections by stealing and are hellbent on destroying the USA. Specifics please. What specifically have the Bulwark writers said that makes you support Trump?
You misunderstand. I supported Trump from when Cruz dropped out. I still support him. My point is that the crazy rhetoric of the never merely confirms us in our support of him. And no, you’ve never heard a conservative call you a baby-eater.
What is your definition of a "conservative"?
Not debating that.
Anyone who uses a term and won't define it is arguing in bad faith.
You sound like Nikki Haley with her response to what the cause of the Civil War was - "What do you think it is?" And Trump's refusal to debate at all.
It’s just a tedious debate. It’s not interesting. And probably no longer applicable. It is now conservative to defend the 60-year/old sexual revolution. I am now firmly anyone who wants to upend the institutions that have betrayed us. Trump gets this. Maybe Bobby Kennedy does.
What institutions are those?
The justice system. The FBI. Top brass of military. Journalism. Academia. I could go on.
OK, two questions then: 1. Who is "us" in "they betrayed us"? 2. How did they betray that "us"? I will remind you that to betray means to "expose (one's country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy."
Do you have any idea how radicalized you sound?
Why not?
Useless. Boring. Pointless.
Okay, between Liz Cheney and Donald Trump, who do you think better upholds actual conservative values?
I’ll just say this. Folks ought to grateful to Trump for destroying three dynasties; Bush, Clinton, Cheney.
Trump is not a conservative. He is off the spectrum of right versus left. He is an authoritarian, which is on a different spectrum. He just happens to have hijacked a previously conservative party. The Cheneys are conservative and have not been destroyed. I would vote for Liz in a heartbeat. Your comments are not grounded in logic, reason, or evidence. You seem to have joined just to poke your finger in the eyes of those you view as libs (most of us are not). We welcome reasoned debate but that’s not what you bring. You would likely be happier elsewhere.
Rather than obfuscating, can you simply answer the actual question?