Jump to content

Trump Is Just A Terrible President, Totally Unfit For The Job


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You apparently skipped class the day they taught logic. If Civil unrest is something Trump ‘wants’ wouldn’t it be logical then for Democratic mayors and governors to step in and stop it? Or even to speak out against it? They’ve spoken out against everything else he’s ‘wanted’ for almost four years! Things  such as prosperity, peace, justice reform, borders, and self determination.

They have been speaking out against it, it isn't working. When your leader is crazy it gets hard to try and be a normal society. Just b/c you choose not to see that side doesn't mean it don't exist.

 

Doesnt work when you have a president who is in a position to be louder than everyone else. 

Edited by TBBills
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TBBills said:

They have been speaking out against it, it isn't working. When your leader is crazy it gets hard to try and be a normal society. Just b/c you choose not to see that side doesn't mean it don't exist.

Hilarious! Their job isn’t just to ‘speak out against it’. They’re getting paid to STOP IT! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TBBills said:

Don't think you understand what is being talked about but that is ok.

Good Lord man. YOU said Trump wants civil unrest. Not me! If as YOU said, civil unrest is good for the President, Democrat mayors would then be scrambling to clamp down on this pro-Trump issue so as to remove the bad optics.....no? 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Good Lord man. YOU said Trump wants civil unrest. Not me! If as YOU said, civil unrest is good for the President, Democrat mayors would then be scrambling to clamp down on this pro-Trump issue so as to remove the bad optics.....no? 

It's obvious TBBills is a poorly educated democrat. He's not very good at projecting. Lol!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Never underestimate the media's ability to harden Trump's base even more.  Well done Washington Post.

 

His base is melting... "owning dem libs" is destroying families and friendships - and people are tired of the non stop hate.

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Good Lord man. YOU said Trump wants civil unrest. Not me! If as YOU said, civil unrest is good for the President, Democrat mayors would then be scrambling to clamp down on this pro-Trump issue so as to remove the bad optics.....no? 

 

Donald Q Trump has nothing else to run on other than civil unrest and hate.

 

Look at the h8 here every day.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.013a029cb249c211b4f5701a3c6b22d9.jpeg 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2020 at 9:47 AM, TBBills said:

They have been speaking out against it, it isn't working. When your leader is crazy it gets hard to try and be a normal society. Just b/c you choose not to see that side doesn't mean it don't exist.

 

Doesnt work when you have a president who is in a position to be louder than everyone else. 

If Democratic leadership is speaking out against violence and looting I've not heard a single instance of it.  Blaming Trump because people are triggered by his behavior seems like a very thin excuse for a lot of bad behavior.  Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago for example, seems to have no problem with violent protests as long as they're not in her neighborhood.   If Mayors such as Ms. Lightfoot and Mr. Wheeler in Portland wanted to quell the unrest it would be fairly easy to accomplish.  But they're either not willing or up to the task.  They prefer to handcuff the police and law enforcement in support of "social justice" than ensure the safety of citizens and their property.  I suspect this policy is being driven from above their pay-grade in a coordinated fashion for purpose.  But I can't imagine how the architects of this social chaos think it is popular among the majority of the population of these cities.  Nor can I imagine this is a winning strategy for the coming election.   

Simply enforce the law and return the streets of the city to civil and peaceful everyday activity.  To do this it will take conviction to deal with rioters and perpetrators of violence.  I suggest giving them several choices and 24 hours to comply, peacefully disband, disburse, and cease violent activities, be arrested, go to the hospital, or go to the morgue.     

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If Democratic leadership is speaking out against violence and looting I've not heard a single instance of it.  Blaming Trump because people are triggered by his behavior seems like a very thin excuse for a lot of bad behavior.  Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago for example, seems to have no problem with violent protests as long as they're not in her neighborhood.   If Mayor such as Ms. Lightfoot and Mr. Wheeler in Portland wanted to quell the unrest it would be fairly easy to accomplish.  But they're either not willing or up to the task.  They;d rather handcuff the police and law enforcement in support of "social justice" than ensure the safety of citizens and their property.  I can't imagine how they can be very popular among the majority of the population of their cities.  Nor can I imagine this is a winning strategy for the coming election.   

Simply enforce the law and return the streets of the city to civil and peaceful everyday activity.  To do this it will take conviction to deal with rioters and perpetrators of violence.  I suggest giving them several choices and 24 hours to comply, peacefully disband, disburse, and cease violent activities, be arrested, go to the hospital, or go to the morgue.     

Lightfoot has absolutely squashed the riots, at least on her street, and Wheeler did the same for his neighborhood in Portland. I don't understand what more you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Lightfoot has absolutely squashed the riots, at least on her street, and Wheeler did the same for his neighborhood in Portland. I don't understand what more you want?

Doing the same in the entire city by making a legitimate attempt to enforce some sort of civil order would be a nice start.  Don't you think?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Doing the same in the entire city by making a legitimate attempt to enforce some sort of civil order would be a nice start.  Don't you think?  

 

You may have missed the sarcasm in his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2020 at 11:33 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

If Democratic leadership is speaking out against violence and looting I've not heard a single instance of it.  Blaming Trump because people are triggered by his behavior seems like a very thin excuse for a lot of bad behavior.  Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago for example, seems to have no problem with violent protests as long as they're not in her neighborhood.   If Mayors such as Ms. Lightfoot and Mr. Wheeler in Portland wanted to quell the unrest it would be fairly easy to accomplish.  But they're either not willing or up to the task.  They prefer to handcuff the police and law enforcement in support of "social justice" than ensure the safety of citizens and their property.  I suspect this policy is being driven from above their pay-grade in a coordinated fashion for purpose.  But I can't imagine how the architects of this social chaos think it is popular among the majority of the population of these cities.  Nor can I imagine this is a winning strategy for the coming election.   

Simply enforce the law and return the streets of the city to civil and peaceful everyday activity.  To do this it will take conviction to deal with rioters and perpetrators of violence.  I suggest giving them several choices and 24 hours to comply, peacefully disband, disburse, and cease violent activities, be arrested, go to the hospital, or go to the morgue.     

 

At the very end of one of his statements during the RNC  Biden said something to the effect of 'rioting is bad.'  So, TECHNICALLY his supporters can say he's "taken a stand against rioting," but it was equivalent to a NYT page 37 retraction.  Yeah, he walked it back, but nobody's going to see it & it doesn't make up for nearly 3 months of implicit support of rioting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...