Yeah, unlike hearing it from the donkey's ass, although the donkey is too old to do anything unless he's on cocaine or crack or meth.

My question still remains, after 9 years, "Why do they h**e him so much?"

No formative answer has been given. No answer will, it appears.

To h**e someone that much, they have to love him.

The media reacted to the word, "bloodbath" ignoring the context. So would it have been better if he said, "hostile take over by the Chinese in American auto industry"? Bloodbath is simpler and gets to the point.

The military has no need for unions due to the structure of the military. And the military has two major groups that fight for the service member, that is the VFW and American Legion.

However there is a need for unions in the civilian world. Unions are best at protecting the workers job and safety concerns. I say this as a union steward.

How ever the good part of a union: you can keep your job. The bad part of a union: you can keep your job.

Unions are necessary to keep the company honest. However what keeps the unions honest? The company is supposed to do that...that's what collective bargaining is all about.

Now, when a company and a union, join forces, anything can be accomplished, the problem lies in how far they go....humanity or mankind pushes the limits of everything and both the company and unions can go too far. Enter the government.

In a properly run company, with a properly run union, with a properly run government, the salary and hourly workers thrive. But if one element is off, then all fail. The necessity of fairness is the key. The elimination of greed is also a necessity of fairness.

This transcends all aspects of life, to include safety. Osha would not exist had it not been for unions, and unions would not exist had it not been for companies, and none of the dynamic would exist without a governing entity to ensure fairness.

Companies are only as good as thier people, and unions are only as good as thier membership, and government is only as good as those they govern.

And to know MAGA is to understand this dynamic.

I often wonder if Ameicans as a whole can communicate? What is the agreed form of communication?

Then after communication, what follows is what weight do you put on what word?

The reason why I ask this question is simply because if three or more intelligent people talk about what the meaning of the comments of any person, this case Trump, what weight do you put on what word?

Miscommunication is the cause of many a person's demise.

1st off Trump is a business man turned politician. He uses words to get publicity. Any publicity is good publicity cause the average person would talk about him. Now that seems selfish, but is it really? I'll get back to that.

2nd as I previously stated Trump was a business man for a majority of his life, since that is true he will talk like a business man, therefore the term, "Bloodbath" simply means the negative effects that plague a business. Now if Donald was a soldier, or in law enforcement, "Bloodbath" would have an entirely different meaning, like Game of Thrones, "Red Wedding" or "Winters coming"

3rd after being the most misquoted man in American politics of all time, Donald Trump has found ways to get under the skin of his media enemies. He exposes thier dishonesty. So that therefore, could be selfish, but then again, he is right, in the context of how he speaks. Take his words out of context, and there is a completely different meaning that too is selfish and dishonest.

How can the pot call the kettle back, when the pot and kettle are made of Iron?

So here is the genius of Trump, since the media is going to be dishonest in reporting the news, why can't Trump, be dishonest with the media?

The civil war began not due to the actions of Lincoln before he was elected, but because the irresponsibility of Buchanan. Because Lincoln was elected, the tensions between the north and the south, textiles and farmers, plantation owners and s***es, quakers movement against s***ery all contintrubuted to South Carolina from leaving the union.

South Carolina declared the reasons of the separation, claiming a two tiered justice system. If a person was a s***e and escaped to the north, the north would violate the constitution by not returning the fugitive. This obviously is morally wrong, however, it is a violation of the constitution not to return the fugitive.

So the civil war, began when South Carolina charged the union with that grievance, and since the union of states refused to hear the grievance, they declared separation from the union.

Later Lincoln would tell congress, "We go to war to preserve the union" thus it was not a civil war but a war amongst the states.

Today we are in the same situation, the terms have changed, the names and places changed, but the idea remains the same.

S***ery was replaced with class warfare. The two tier justice system, was replaced from s***ery, to the two major political parties, and chaos now surrounds us, just as it did for our ancestors.

Now, the principle against hypocracy remains the same. And it is that hypocracy that needs to change.

Each and every member of Maga movement is equal to one another, yet with in the function of thier status. But on the Democrat side, they are equal in name only.

Now in the 1800s leading up.to.the civil war, was a Supreme Court case, known as Dred Scot.

The court claimed that Scott was a s***e and not a citizen therefore could not bring his case to court.

This decision would plague, the nation after the war.

Now 120 years later, we are arguing in.principle the same fight. It is a fact that Republicans since Lincoln, always practiced e******y. But the democrats always divided the people.

Maga calls America the great melting pot.
Democrats call America where the person originated from African America, Asian American, Hispanic american......etc.

But the lefties would pervert that message, and they do it all the time.

But if you would stop all the lefty prejudice, and just look at who Maga really is, Maga is well meaning Americans, who want to be left alone. These are people, that try to live, life. And try not to be center stage. People who want to hold on to the good ol days. Maga is not the inssurectionists the left makes them out to be. Most Maga people, just want to live and let live.

But because the l*****ts destroy everything in thier path, and try to make everyone think that is what they should do, these people don't buy the pitch. But the l*****ts get insulted by that. Maga thinks simple, not complex.

The complex thinker always gets in trouble. Simple people rarely get into trouble. But when the lefties try to take away, what the simple enjoy, or even the profit they make, they will rise up and stop them. That's human nature.

If I trespass in your house, and take your gold or anything that belongs to you, you too will revolt against them.

Due to this reason, if a war does erupt as Donald warns, then history will repeat its self. And I'm against war, after serving in two, however, if the two sides can't come to a compromise, if they can't set aside thier grievances, as men, then the last result is force.

So put away the double standard and hypocracy, then war shall not come.

This is a true fact

Dude, awesome post! I like it. Needs to be put on a billboard or something, that was good on so many levels!

To answer that question, if I don't v**e for Trump, what's the alternative? Fournmore years of Biden? And if that be true, and America is pissed off right now at old Joe, do you really think, now use critical thinking, that old Joe would resort to using force to eliminate his political enemies?

Thus, the prediction of Donald Trump is correct, and it is an observation......h**e to point out the obvious but James Buchanan had Fort Sumner, as Lincoln took office. What would Joe have?

Really, that is an interesting defense, coming from you, hmm someone else said the same thing in different words but same meaning, it went,

"If I don't defend myself, who will?" ---- Donald J Trump

Are you a liberal i***t who got left behind?

What a stupid post!!!

...and here's why.....

The first amendment specifically protects the free practice of religion, by saying, "Congress shall make no law, respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion"

Since this is the law of the land, it applies to both religion and non religion as the premise as read straight, and in reverse.

Due to this reason, the constitution, the first amendment, prohibits the practice of writing laws to decide the morality of the people. To do do would mimic the monarchy the federalist were so against.

It is here that Jefferson wrote his famous letter of "separation of church and state". Jeffersons push was to eliminate the the mystic superstition from matters of law. This is what came out of the enlightenment age.

However, for a law to be just, the superstition must be removed as well as the hypocrisy. The former is true but the latter is not. For the latter to be true, then the two tiered justice system would not exist, nor would accusations be considered automatic guilt.

However, the principle, as set forth, according to Jefferson about the superstitious nature of religion holds true, and do does the converse, hypocrisy. Thus since both should be omitted by law, therefore, both should not be practiced in law. Which brings forth the sodomy laws as enacted by congress backed by Abraham Lincoln.

Therefore if we are to refrain from hypocrisy, and recognize honest Abe for "Freeing the s***es" we must also recognize him for instituting the morality of the anti sodomy laws. These laws were invoked due to the.livestyle.of the Moromons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which practiced the act of polygamy. Honest Abe was against that.

But here, like in the case of the homosexual, the government tried to dictate the morals of the person or group. Now, in the end, Lincoln was right because the Mormons no longer practice polygamy. But it was still a legal moral issue.

Now, in any case, if no one complains and there is no harm, then why change the law. Clinton reversed all the sodomy laws which would then hurt the community it was protecting.

So the whole premise of your thread falls apart.

Governments of man, have no right to warrant the morality of man. Since man is equal to another, then what right does one man have to judge another man. Thus we've come full circle, "Ye with no sin, cast the first stone."

Nice try. You are assuming that the 200 million are distributed equally, if the population is distributed equally then your theory makes sense, 1/3 to win. However that is flawed based upon. The distribution. Of the 200 million.

So say, three states, California, Texas, and New York, have greater than 1/4 of the population, leaving the other states combined the other 1/4 of the population. These three states would decide the e******n based upon your premise, this describes the popular v**e.

Now if we look at how the amount e*****rs is distributed amongst the states, thats where the balance comes into play.

Better explanation would be if you read the federalist papers, I believe it was by Hamilton or Madison, where they define the system of the e*******l college and the balance mechanism.

The locals have the most power, for it is through the local system, where the winner is drawn from. This removes in theory any political machine. For it is the counties, that make up the e*******l college, but these counties are bound by thier perspective state. Whosoever wins the majority of the counties wins the state, and its from the counties that the e*****rs are drawn from.

Also, the people trust the e*****r to v**e for the will of the county they represent. If the e*****r flips, at time to cast the v**e, it is the right and duty of the county to take action against the e*****r, who is bound according to local law to do his duty. If he is found derelict, then as the local law provides he hid thus held to account.

Local laws and states laws govern e*****rs.

Thus, your thesis is flawed considering that the math assumes e******y of population as compared to reality of the unequal distribution of population.

I

Mostly I agree with your post. Biden successfully passed off half the nation with his state of the union speech, and well Trump pisses off the other half each time he talks.

However, the t***h be told through action and not words, Trump helped the country, where Biden hurt the country.

But Mr Congeniality, Mr Trump, like Sandra Bullock in the movie of the same name, had a lot of parallels. The heart is there in Trump, but the mouth is not.

We have in this country, have gotten use to political correctness, or looking out for another's feelings. Well we found in the 90s that doesn't work, nor does throwing money at a problem work. For if it did work, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama, would have been great presidrnts, but that in hindsight is not true, they were average, but they got the job done.

Trump comes along and does what they couldn't do, in four years....he should be given credit for that, but wasn't because of his mouth. Now we look at Joe Biden.

Three years in office, and not only has he pissed off republicans, Maga, and what's left of the tea party, but old Joe pissed off independents, libertarians, and his fellow democrats. Therefore he pissed off a great majority of America.

Now dies it really matter his mental acuity? Not really, since if push came to shove, he wouldn't fight. That's what's playing out right now.

America saw years ago, when trump was accusing Biden in a debate, during the 2020 e******n, how Joe Biden seemed to cry.

Well, that's what it appeared to be in that one debate. Now, in poetic justice, America saw that, and instead of listening to the quantity of Trump's statements and the treatment he received thereafter, America only reacted to the fact that Trump made Biden cry.

That's why he lost the e******n, due to the sympathy of Americans. But that's true only.on the surface. If you dig deeper, the results of 2020 e******n were and still are inconclusive. Therefore Trump's statement, 'They s***e the e******n" is just as true as Biden’s statement, "I won with the most v**es in American history." Both statements are true as proved above.

Do we need fresh new candidates? Yes I believe as you do. However, in this junction of time, we need a man who has the fortitude to withstand the evil that will occur in the next four years.

That being said, who would you choose to save your life, "Trump, Biden, RFK Jr. Or the others on the b****t" we will know in November.

Yeah, I agree with you on half your statement, he is a New Yorker who grew up in Queens. A lot of those people are bullies.

But here's the thing, I would rather have a bully in the oval office, than a coward whose too old to piss.

FACT CHECK: there is no conclusive evidence to support that claim. Again False post