Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[gtn130]

How would GOP behavior look different if they were not Trump enablers?

I think to the casual observer they'd look quite different. To anyone paying attention it would be more of the same with toned down rhetoric.

The GOP abandoned climate change policy in like ~2008, but there was a short window in which they were exploring bipartisan climate policy before it became a major partisan issue. I'd say over the last 10+ years the Trump GOP behavior has been pretty standard.

[popper]

My position is that the GOP has become the party for dumb people. George Will, someone I imagine you respect, said as much just last week.

That is why lots of internet communities invariably turn into liberal echo chambers - because conservatives just get owned when they try to defend their indefensible positions. Any politically engaged conservative lives in a haze of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and once they step outside that bubble and have to support their beliefs with actual facts, it all falls apart.

You believe that because you, and most others on this thread, operate in a cloistered world where you’re not exposed to opinions outside the progressive echo chamber. Anyone with a different political opinion than the one you hold is necessarily demonized in order to stifle debate. Why do you think college administrators are so careful not to allow dissenting viewpoints on campus? It’s the same with progressive media. Stifling free speech, debate, and dialectic is a hallmark of leftist strategy and has been for many decades. I’d like to honestly engage in debate on this thread but my experience over the last ten years informs me that the normal totalitarian tendency to demonize and excoriate those with different opinions makes that near impossible. It’s a shame both for our collective intellectual growth and for the future of our body politic. Let me know if you want to engage and debate without the labeling and name calling. Otherwise, enjoy the groupthink.

Popper, I understand the conservative arguments better than you do. I literally log onto the internet to argue with people, I have no idea how you can conclude that *I'm* the guy who wants to stifle debate.

Daoneandonly is a great example of a conservative with absolutely ***zero*** understanding of or care for why liberal progressives believe the things they do. He genuinely, earnestly, truly believes that women (liberals) have abortions because they enjoy murdering babies. That's as critically as he's willing to think about competing ideas. There is no empathy or desire to understand opposing viewpoints there, but you seem very content with his posting.

My point here though really just boils down to what conservatism actually is in 2019, which is that it's almost entirely just an exercise in grifting dumb people. If you align with the GOP on gun laws, climate change, tax policy and so on, you're the mark. You're being duped. You're buying into idea that are completely illegitimate and served up by depraved corporate oligarchs looking to enrich only themselves at the expense of everyone else.

There is no virtue in having these high-minded marketplace of ideas style debates when ~40% of the electorate has bought into a bunch of bad faith dog**** propaganda.

Sorry gtn. You personally have not stifled debate. Thanks for correction. Disagree with you on who’s being grifted. In certain respects we’re all being mislead to one extent or another. That’s not a blanket condemnation of our entire system of govt though.

[popper]

How would GOP behavior look different if they were not Trump enablers?

Probably a lot if Romney were President instead of Trump. That would have been my choice had he run again.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Probably a lot if Romney were President instead of Trump. That would have been my choice had he run again.

Romney wouldn't have won, is the thing. That's sort of the issue here. Trump won in a rather narrow way that other Republican candidates simply wouldn't have. Playing to anger and bringing in other voters that wouldn't have voted at all in key places mattered.

And that's sort of at the heart of the issue with Trump. How far is a person willing to go in order to get other things they want or block other things they don't want? The choice wasn't Romney or the Democrats this time around. It was Trump and the Democrats. It's obviously going to be different for everyone but I do think it's a fair ask that there are actually clear answers there, not just vague waves that represent a moving target, but consistent clear messaging of what the ultimate goal is and why. And I'm not asking that of you right now, either, nor even finger-pointing at you, but I hope you'd agree that, even if it isn't necessarily you, there is a LOT of support out there who's definition seems to be more about anger with any particular liberal policy and wanting someone else to be hurt somehow than actual clear reasons for what they feel Trump is doing to help them. I mean, I can hear those kinds of arguments, too, that Trump is helping the people, but they're basically always internally conflicting and not at all logical reasons.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Very disturbing that the same people who were responsible for Iraq 2003 are advising this president. Just to give you all a perspective of how dangerous this is, I've studied what a war would Iran would like. Call your Congress representative. Share the below. There's a reason the Pentagon is reportedly not for a war despite the likes of John Bolton continuously pushing and pushing from FOX News to the National Security Council.

Worst case scenario:

Not only does Iran fire ballistic missiles at Saudi/Emirati/Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. They also target their water and electrical infrastructure. Iran then activates it’s proxies in those countries plunging them into total chaos. Oil production would cease in those countries permanently. Which means even if the US re-opens the straits of Hormuz, oil would stay at HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS a barrel permanently since these countries would collapse and cease to exist as we know them right now. I'm not even being overly dramatic here.

Hezbollah and Israel go to war with other. But this war will be even more devastating for both Lebanon and Israel. Hezbollah has 100,000 rockets and about 10k ballistic missiles. This means all of Israel will be on the crosshairs of attack. This will disrupt the Israeli economy and lead to more casualties. Israel will then launch a ground invasion into Lebanon but end up fighting a bloody guerrilla war since Hezbollah is battle hardened from Syria and the terrain favors guerrilla warfare. Plus Hezbollah has plenty MANPADS, ATGMs and anti ship missiles to wreak havoc on an invading force. The war becomes a bloody stalemate which doesn’t benefit Israel. You could also see shia proxies in Syria cross into Lebanon to aid Hezbollah to further complicate things. And you may see Hamas open a second front in Gaza to stretch the IDF thin. Israel will be pushed to the brink with high casualties and a long bloody war with no end in sight.

In Iraq, you would have shia militias attacking US military bases with their own ballistic missiles. US forces will be under severe pressure in Iraq because they will be basically surrounded and pinned down with supply lines closed off. Iran would fire ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq as well. The same would occur in Afghanistan.

With war with Iran the war drags on. It would take weeks for an effective bombing campaign to succeed because Iran is so massive. The first target would be to take out the S-300, the Russian air defense system, before anything else. The problem is they are mobile. Secondly US AirPower focusing primarily on taking the S-300 leaves their ballistic missile capabilities untouched for a while which means this give Iran more time to cause more harm. This is the reason why Israel and the US were upset they got the S-300 because it makes war with Iran going from kinda hard to straight up more difficult. And as the war drag on the US will have two choices. De escalate and end hostilities or go full lunatic and try to invade Iran to remove the regime from power.

The US military does not have the manpower to invade or occupy Iran. Iran’s strategy in war with the US is spread the conflict to over stretch the US, bring the global economy down and raise the cost of war so high the US will be forced to stop.

[popper]

Probably a lot if Romney were President instead of Trump. That would have been my choice had he run again.

Romney wouldn't have won, is the thing. That's sort of the issue here. Trump won in a rather narrow way that other Republican candidates simply wouldn't have. Playing to anger and bringing in other voters that wouldn't have voted at all in key places mattered.

And that's sort of at the heart of the issue with Trump. How far is a person willing to go in order to get other things they want or block other things they don't want? The choice wasn't Romney or the Democrats this time around. It was Trump and the Democrats. It's obviously going to be different for everyone but I do think it's a fair ask that there are actually clear answers there, not just vague waves that represent a moving target, but consistent clear messaging of what the ultimate goal is and why. And I'm not asking that of you right now, either, nor even finger-pointing at you, but I hope you'd agree that, even if it isn't necessarily you, there is a LOT of support out there who's definition seems to be more about anger with any particular liberal policy and wanting someone else to be hurt somehow than actual clear reasons for what they feel Trump is doing to help them. I mean, I can hear those kinds of arguments, too, that Trump is helping the people, but they're basically always internally conflicting and not at all logical reasons.

Yeah. I think that’s a fair assessment. I do believe it’s more about anger having to do with D policies than it is about wanting to hurt someone (though I’m sure those individuals exist in both parties - hopefully in small numbers).

[dobrojim]

How would GOP behavior look different if they were not Trump enablers?

Probably a lot if Romney were President instead of Trump. That would have been my choice had he run again.

Sorry. If DJT isn't POTUS, then I would expect them to basically be towing the McConnell party line,
which is just awful. In some or even many ways, not that much different.

My point was more about the party's willingness to overlook the myriad of ways Trump
has eroded our democracy and yeah, Trump is orders of magnitude worse in this regard
than anything BHO did.

Obsequiousness to the despicable starting with Putin and MBS.
The flagrant corruption the likes of which we have not seen in
at least a hundred years. The outright criminality of obstruction.

And then there is the grift as another poster brought up.
Where are the GOP reps/sen calling for a release of tax returns
and appearances from subpoenas? The outrageous-ness of saying
Congress has no authority to investigate. The GOP has given every
indication that they are scared $hitless about what the information
that would be discovered in these documents would say. When it
does come out, I expect they all say something like, I had no idea...

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yeah. I think that’s a fair assessment. I do believe it’s more about anger having to do with D policies than it is about wanting to hurt someone (though I’m sure those individuals exist in both parties - hopefully in small numbers).

I should clarify, when I say hurt someone, I don't necessarily mean physically. I mean more in the sense of being taken down a few pegs or putting someone back in their place, whatever that is. It might be thinking city folk have it too good or something else, but it's definitely a major factor.

And as for D policies, I'm sure that's sort of true. I'd suggest, though, that the D policies that are the bigger issues tend to be ones that nobody is willing to admit to, or at the very least, ones that people are against but don't actually have any better solutions for. The other policies that get thrown out there generally tend to be ones that both parties zigzag across and so you get this argument about how one party doing it is horrible and ignoring it otherwise. That's a clear sign that it isn't the key issue. To be fair, that also happens the other way and I've noticed you've pointed that out a few times - I don't always agree but I have at times, too, and when I do, I generally feel it's because the Ds have an issue elsewhere, perhaps even a legitimate one, and are angling to play any part.

The bigger policies I see, to overgeneralize, tend to be ones that kick massive but undefined costs down the line, and nobody ever wants to admit that. To take a non-partisan issue, we see anti-vaxxers arguing they're avoiding costs for themselves in the form of autism risks for their kids. They're ignoring reality on that one, but even beyond that, they're creating a much greater cost that is being offloaded onto everyone else in the form of medical epidemics. The environment tends to be more partisan, though the Democrats also have their problems with it, too. Offload a bunch of costs onto future generations so we don't have to deal with it now. It turns politics into a finger pointing game where you don't even have to worry about what is coming out of the people you're supporting, only figuring out any particular reason not to like the others at any given point. It's to the point where many Republicans have decided that they don't like what the Democrats are doing so much that either they're willing to vote for legitimately worse options in the form of what the Republican party is presenting for no real reason, or those aren't the real reasons they're voting Republican and there's something worse they don't want to admit to behind it.

[popper]

Yeah. I think that’s a fair assessment. I do believe it’s more about anger having to do with D policies than it is about wanting to hurt someone (though I’m sure those individuals exist in both parties - hopefully in small numbers).

I should clarify, when I say hurt someone, I don't necessarily mean physically. I mean more in the sense of being taken down a few pegs or putting someone back in their place, whatever that is. It might be thinking city folk have it too good or something else, but it's definitely a major factor.

And as for D policies, I'm sure that's sort of true. I'd suggest, though, that the D policies that are the bigger issues tend to be ones that nobody is willing to admit to, or at the very least, ones that people are against but don't actually have any better solutions for. The other policies that get thrown out there generally tend to be ones that both parties zigzag across and so you get this argument about how one party doing it is horrible and ignoring it otherwise. That's a clear sign that it isn't the key issue. To be fair, that also happens the other way and I've noticed you've pointed that out a few times - I don't always agree but I have at times, too, and when I do, I generally feel it's because the Ds have an issue elsewhere, perhaps even a legitimate one, and are angling to play any part.

The bigger policies I see, to overgeneralize, tend to be ones that kick massive but undefined costs down the line, and nobody ever wants to admit that. To take a non-partisan issue, we see anti-vaxxers arguing they're avoiding costs for themselves in the form of autism risks for their kids. They're ignoring reality on that one, but even beyond that, they're creating a much greater cost that is being offloaded onto everyone else in the form of medical epidemics. The environment tends to be more partisan, though the Democrats also have their problems with it, too. Offload a bunch of costs onto future generations so we don't have to deal with it now. It turns politics into a finger pointing game where you don't even have to worry about what is coming out of the people you're supporting, only figuring out any particular reason not to like the others at any given point. It's to the point where many Republicans have decided that they don't like what the Democrats are doing so much that either they're willing to vote for legitimately worse options in the form of what the Republican party is presenting for no real reason, or those aren't the real reasons they're voting Republican and there's something worse they don't want to admit to behind it.

Yep. These are issues that need to be addressed and of course there’s a host of others as well. I don’t see that happening unless people of good faith, especially our leadership, find the will to sit down with the opposing party and work the problems. I’m 62, and twenty five plus years ago these policy discussions and compromises were routine. Not saying solutions were easy to come by or that mistakes weren’t made but politicians seemed to better grasp the reality and necessity of compromise in order to move the the ball forward. I’m not sure what exactly happened to change the environment. Maybe you or others do. If so, I’d like to hear it.

[pancakes3]

in not so many words, Mitch McConnell.

[Sedale Threatt]

in not so many words, Mitch McConnell.

And before him, Newt Gingrich. If this feature doesn't make you angry, nothing will.

There’s something about Newt Gingrich that seems to capture the spirit of America circa 2018. With his immense head and white mop of hair; his cold, boyish grin; and his high, raspy voice, he has the air of a late-empire Roman senator—a walking bundle of appetites and excesses and hubris and wit. In conversation, he toggles unnervingly between grandiose pronouncements about “Western civilization” and partisan cheap shots that seem tailored for cable news. It’s a combination of self-righteousness and smallness, of pomposity and pettiness, that personifies the decadence of this era.

In the clamorous story of Donald Trump’s Washington, it would be easy to mistake Gingrich for a minor character. A loyal Trump ally in 2016, Gingrich forwent a high-powered post in the administration and has instead spent the years since the election cashing in on his access—churning out books (three Trump hagiographies, one spy thriller), working the speaking circuit (where he commands as much as $75,000 per talk for his insights on the president), and popping up on Fox News as a paid contributor. He spends much of his time in Rome, where his wife, Callista, serves as Trump’s ambassador to the Vatican and where, he likes to boast, “We have yet to find a bad restaurant.”

But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.

When I ask him how he views his legacy, Gingrich takes me on a tour of a Western world gripped by crisis. In Washington, chaos reigns as institutional authority crumbles. Throughout America, right-wing Trumpites and left-wing resisters are treating midterm races like calamitous fronts in a civil war that must be won at all costs. And in Europe, populist revolts are wreaking havoc in capitals across the Continent.

Twenty-five years after engineering the Republican Revolution, Gingrich can draw a direct line from his work in Congress to the upheaval now taking place around the globe. But as he surveys the wreckage of the modern political landscape, he is not regretful. He’s gleeful.

“The old order is dying,” he tells me. “Almost everywhere you have freedom, you have a very deep discontent that the system isn’t working.”

Yeah, because of gaping @ssholes like you...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Very disturbing that the same people who were responsible for Iraq 2003 are advising this president. Just to give you all a perspective of how dangerous this is, I've studied what a war would Iran would like. Call your Congress representative. Share the below. There's a reason the Pentagon is reportedly not for a war despite the likes of John Bolton continuously pushing and pushing from FOX News to the National Security Council.

Worst case scenario:

Not only does Iran fire ballistic missiles at Saudi/Emirati/Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. They also target their water and electrical infrastructure. Iran then activates it’s proxies in those countries plunging them into total chaos. Oil production would cease in those countries permanently. Which means even if the US re-opens the straits of Hormuz, oil would stay at HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS a barrel permanently since these countries would collapse and cease to exist as we know them right now. I'm not even being overly dramatic here.

Hezbollah and Israel go to war with other. But this war will be even more devastating for both Lebanon and Israel. Hezbollah has 100,000 rockets and about 10k ballistic missiles. This means all of Israel will be on the crosshairs of attack. This will disrupt the Israeli economy and lead to more casualties. Israel will then launch a ground invasion into Lebanon but end up fighting a bloody guerrilla war since Hezbollah is battle hardened from Syria and the terrain favors guerrilla warfare. Plus Hezbollah has plenty MANPADS, ATGMs and anti ship missiles to wreak havoc on an invading force. The war becomes a bloody stalemate which doesn’t benefit Israel. You could also see shia proxies in Syria cross into Lebanon to aid Hezbollah to further complicate things. And you may see Hamas open a second front in Gaza to stretch the IDF thin. Israel will be pushed to the brink with high casualties and a long bloody war with no end in sight.

In Iraq, you would have shia militias attacking US military bases with their own ballistic missiles. US forces will be under severe pressure in Iraq because they will be basically surrounded and pinned down with supply lines closed off. Iran would fire ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq as well. The same would occur in Afghanistan.

With war with Iran the war drags on. It would take weeks for an effective bombing campaign to succeed because Iran is so massive. The first target would be to take out the S-300, the Russian air defense system, before anything else. The problem is they are mobile. Secondly US AirPower focusing primarily on taking the S-300 leaves their ballistic missile capabilities untouched for a while which means this give Iran more time to cause more harm. This is the reason why Israel and the US were upset they got the S-300 because it makes war with Iran going from kinda hard to straight up more difficult. And as the war drag on the US will have two choices. De escalate and end hostilities or go full lunatic and try to invade Iran to remove the regime from power.

The US military does not have the manpower to invade or occupy Iran. Iran’s strategy in war with the US is spread the conflict to over stretch the US, bring the global economy down and raise the cost of war so high the US will be forced to stop.

Well if people didn’t want a war with Iran they should have voted for the Democrat.

[pancakes3]

it's hard to say that in a vacuum. i don't think HRC would have inflamed Iran to the point where we are now but if we had gotten to the point where tensions are currently, HRC is def more likely to pull the trigger on the strike.

[Pointgod]

How would GOP behavior look different if they were not Trump enablers?

I think to the casual observer they'd look quite different. To anyone paying attention it would be more of the same with toned down rhetoric.

The GOP abandoned climate change policy in like ~2008, but there was a short window in which they were exploring bipartisan climate policy before it became a major partisan issue. I'd say over the last 10+ years the Trump GOP behavior has been pretty standard.

Bingo. The symptom is Trump but the disease is the Republican Party. Without Trump they’d still be the racist, shameless grifters they’ve always been just a lot less overt about it.

[FAH1223]

it's hard to say that in a vacuum. i don't think HRC would have inflamed Iran to the point where we are now but if we had gotten to the point where tensions are currently, HRC is def more likely to pull the trigger on the strike.

I disagree. HRC may have sounded hawkish before but she would have stayed in the JCPOA (Iran Deal) as it was Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, Iran is complying, and the it was a UN Security Council resolution affirmed by UK, France, Germany, China and Russia.

The situation wouldn’t be at this point.

[Pointgod]

it's hard to say that in a vacuum. i don't think HRC would have inflamed Iran to the point where we are now but if we had gotten to the point where tensions are currently, HRC is def more likely to pull the trigger on the strike.

Wrong. HRC wouldn’t have gotten into this problem with Iran because she’s not a **** idiot. Remember she was Secretary of State. She would have stayed in the Iran deal. This tension with Iran is entirely of Trumps creation because he wants to look like a tough. Trump should get zero credit for not going to war in a situation that he created in the first place.

[Zonkerbl]

I just don't think it's possible to hate HRC's policies that much. They're Dem policies, which enjoy a majority of support. To hate Dem policies on abortion that much that you would vote for Trump instead is unthinkable, unless you are also motivated by hate. Because what Trump is doing is so bad, so hateful that any reasonable person who didn't secretly agree that immigrants should be rounded up for eventual extermination, to "dissuade" them from coming here, would've said "woah hey this is a civilized country. I want abortions and to have doctors commit govt mandated sexual assault with unnecessarily invasive vaginal probes, but otherwise I'm a decent human being and can't support this regime that gives me what I want but at the expense of setting democracy and the rule of law on fire."

This is why I don't understand. The people who support Trump loudly say things like "I want Trump to lock up his political enemies," "the press are the enemy of the people," "I will use my guns to murder liberals 'in self defense,'" many of them have murdered abortion doctors and others say they endorse it, so why are we too squeamish to ask all Trump supporters, "at what point would Trump go too far for you? Only with mass gas chamber exterminations of immigrants, non-fox journalists, abortion doctors, anyone who's too liberal- only when it's far, far too late to stop him? What would it take you to believe the GOP is on this road and therefore pull your support? Or do you secretly support all these things?"

I don't know about you guys but I really, really want to know the answer to these questions. I'd like to start with all the pro Trump people on this board. How much extermination would be too much for you? What would it take to convince you that we are right and Trump and the GOP are leading us down this path? AGAIN?

Or only after all the bodies are piled up in mass graves will you admit your mistake? Or even then will you continue to deny the truth?

[FAH1223]

it's hard to say that in a vacuum. i don't think HRC would have inflamed Iran to the point where we are now but if we had gotten to the point where tensions are currently, HRC is def more likely to pull the trigger on the strike.

Wrong. HRC wouldn’t have gotten into this problem with Iran because she’s not a **** idiot. Remember she was Secretary of State. She would have stayed in the Iran deal. This tension with Iran is entirely of Trumps creation because he wants to look like a tough. Trump should get zero credit for not going to war in a situation that he created in the first place.

Don't forget Sheldon Adelson was Trump's biggest donor (or perhaps it was the Mercer family?) and they have done Adelson's bidding with regards to Israel and giving Netanyahu's far right government everything it wants.

Adelson wants nukes dropped on Iran. Bolton has also called on using pre-emptive nuclear attacks on Iran as well.

These are insane psychopaths.

[popper]

I just don't think it's possible to hate HRC's policies that much. They're Dem policies, which enjoy a majority of support. To hate Dem policies on abortion that much that you would vote for Trump instead is unthinkable, unless you are also motivated by hate. Because what Trump is doing is so bad, so hateful that any reasonable person who didn't secretly agree that immigrants should be rounded up for eventual extermination, to "dissuade" them from coming here, would've said "woah hey this is a civilized country. I want abortions and to have doctors commit govt mandated sexual assault with unnecessarily invasive vaginal probes, but otherwise I'm a decent human being and can't support this regime that gives me what I want but at the expense of setting democracy and the rule of law on fire."

This is why I don't understand. The people who support Trump loudly say things like "I want Trump to lock up his political enemies," "the press are the enemy of the people," "I will use my guns to murder liberals 'in self defense,'" many of them have murdered abortion doctors and others say they endorse it, so why are we too squeamish to ask all Trump supporters, "at what point would Trump go too far for you? Only with mass gas chamber exterminations of immigrants, non-fox journalists, abortion doctors, anyone who's too liberal- only when it's far, far too late to stop him? What would it take you to believe the GOP is on this road and therefore pull your support? Or do you secretly support all these things?"

I don't know about you guys but I really, really want to know the answer to these questions. I'd like to start with all the pro Trump people on this board. How much extermination would be too much for you? What would it take to convince you that we are right and Trump and the GOP are leading us down this path? AGAIN?

Or only after all the bodies are piled up in mass gtraves will you admit your mistake? Or even then will you continue to deny the truth?

I’m not ignoring you Zonk. I just thought since I’ve been posting here for ten years that you might prefer to hear from other Trump-voting participants that have been so warmly welcomed here.

[Pointgod]

I just don't think it's possible to hate HRC's policies that much. They're Dem policies, which enjoy a majority of support. To hate Dem policies on abortion that much that you would vote for Trump instead is unthinkable, unless you are also motivated by hate. Because what Trump is doing is so bad, so hateful that any reasonable person who didn't secretly agree that immigrants should be rounded up for eventual extermination, to "dissuade" them from coming here, would've said "woah hey this is a civilized country. I want abortions and to have doctors commit govt mandated sexual assault with unnecessarily invasive vaginal probes, but otherwise I'm a decent human being and can't support this regime that gives me what I want but at the expense of setting democracy and the rule of law on fire."

This is why I don't understand. The people who support Trump loudly say things like "I want Trump to lock up his political enemies," "the press are the enemy of the people," "I will use my guns to murder liberals 'in self defense,'" many of them have murdered abortion doctors and others say they endorse it, so why are we too squeamish to ask all Trump supporters, "at what point would Trump go too far for you? Only with mass gas chamber exterminations of immigrants, non-fox journalists, abortion doctors, anyone who's too liberal- only when it's far, far too late to stop him? What would it take you to believe the GOP is on this road and therefore pull your support? Or do you secretly support all these things?"

I don't know about you guys but I really, really want to know the answer to these questions. I'd like to start with all the pro Trump people on this board. How much extermination would be too much for you? What would it take to convince you that we are right and Trump and the GOP are leading us down this path? AGAIN?

Or only after all the bodies are piled up in mass graves will you admit your mistake? Or even then will you continue to deny the truth?

It’s very simple, for Trump supporters and the majority of Republicans everything has been reduced to sports type fanatics. Support your team at all costs no matter how hypocritical, morally bankrupt or disgusting.

That’s why the same people that complain about free speech are fine with Trump wanting to lock up journalists. The same people that talk about Antifa are fine with multiple Trump supporters trying to kill people. So you’ll never get an honest answer because they will support their team no matter the cost, but don’t want to deal with the pushback.