• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When you defend Trump, what is it you think you are defending?

An honorable man?
An honest man?
A faithful husband?
A man with integrity?
A great business person?
An intelligent thoughtful person who doesn't rush to decisions?

What are you defending?
Avoiding the quasi-communist/ socialist destruction of Constitutional style of government.
 
I rarely defend Trump, though I have often noticed that some get confused when I defend a policy that Trump also happens to support.

The means does not justify the ends.

Donald Trump is a danger to this country by virtue of his character. If not, someone who can be counted on to keep his word, or to have any sense of loyalty or obligation. He is amoral and often immoral.

That’s what makes it so odd that he is so worshipped by Evangelicals.
 
Trump didn't win due to "low voter turnout".

• Finally and most importantly, Democratic campaigns have long believed that marginal voters — that is, people who vote infrequently — tend to vote blue if and when they do cast a ballot. Until relatively recently, this was a robust assumption. From my long experience analyzing polling, I know that polls of likely voters routinely used to be more Republican-leaning than polls of all adults or registered voters, implying that Democrats would benefit from a higher turnout. (This assumption was even baked into our election models.) In the Trump Era, however, this pattern has reversed. Democrats routinely overperform in low-turnout affairs like special elections, while Republicans do better in high-turnout presidential years.
Link
I didn’t say Trump won “due to low voter turnout".

I said; A “mandate” based on a low voter turnout plurality popular vote win?

The point I clearly made was that, contrary to @MAGAnificent’s wrong claim of Traitor Trump being elected on a mandate, a plurality popular vote win isn’t a mandate for anything.

Certainly not by historic political standards.

As for overall voter turnout, there were 4.17M fewer votes cast in ‘24 than in ‘20, with Harris losing by 2.28M.

Evaluate those numbers however you like.
 
It seems to me you have a problem accepting facts.
What facts would those be
Trump is twice impeached,
Not for anything he actually did just because the opposing party was sore that they lost degrading the concept of impeachment to absolutely meaningless.
a convicted felon
In a scam trial you had to invent the llawto convict him of breaking.
and a sexual offender
There's absolutely no evidence of this you might as well tell me he eats puppies
and all you folks on the right can say is sham trials and documents cases.
Well sham trials are shams stop doing that and will quit calling it out. The reality is there is a vendetta out against Donald Trump by the inside the beltway authoritarians Trump needs to be rammed down their throats.
Or in other words, the grand jury was rigged, the lawyers all lied, the jury was fixed and the judge was in on it all. Occam's razor.
Yes that's what's happened. All of these people need to be prosecuted for attempted sedition.
 
This is conjecture on my part, but I believe it’s defending a Democrat NOT being in the WH more than anything else…
 
An honorable man?
An honest man?
A faithful husband?
A man with integrity?
A great business person?
An intelligent thoughtful person who doesn't rush to decisions?

What are you defending?
They are defending the kind of disgusting people that they show themselves to be on a daily basis.
 
You are still not making any sense. Perhaps if you toned down the TDS. Trump won the popular vote. It's cute that you are attempting to play that down.
Nice try at misdirection.
tRump won the popular vote but not the majority of the popular vote.
Now, if you toned down your Trump Defense Syndrome responses, your comprehension might improve.
 
An honorable man?
An honest man?
A faithful husband?
A man with integrity?
A great business person?
An intelligent thoughtful person who doesn't rush to decisions?
When have we ever had a President who fit this description?

Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon were faithful to their wives.

What are you defending?
The facts, of course.

The anti-Trump cult lies about Trump even more than they say he lies.

A “mandate” based on a low voter turnout plurality popular vote win?
Trump increased the popular count by over 9 million votes, from -7.1 MM to +2.3 MM, and he did it dodging Wile E Coyote's legal prosecutions.

That's a mandate.
 
I cannot speak for everyone; however I defend Trump for following through on the mandates he was elected on, especially southern border enforcement.
It's adorable that you think he's going to boot all those nasty lil brown people 🤣
 
They are defending a pedophile to own the libs.
 
The only reason it's been "declined" is because it's true and there is nothing to be said about it. But it's just common knowledge at this point.

What's becoming common knowledge is that democrats absolutely adore the perception of racism, as they think they can benefit politically from it. Thats why they bring out the race card when they have no intelligent argument.
 
What's becoming common knowledge is that democrats absolutely adore the perception of racism, as they think they can benefit politically from it.
Why is it perception and not reality? MAGA is just a continuation of Richard Nixon's successful southern strategy, using racism as a coalition partner to advance plutocracy- often on the racists' own backs. The plutocrats/oligarchs provide the money, the racists provide the vote. Win-win. It has had the same consistent electoral base ever since.


 
I shouldn't speak for how someone else actually thinks. However, it seems pretty obvious that they're defending themselves when they defend Taco. They over-identify with Taco and seem to feel actually hurt when he is spoken against. From observation I believe:

1. They admire that Taco can get away with anything, literally anything, and they wish they could too.
2. They wish they were rich like Taco is.
3. They believe Taco will get them to the backward America they want.

Therefore, defending him means defending their own dreams. Not reality, but dreams. Shatter that, and what's left? Their boring lives that don't mean much?

Now...with that said, MOST people lead boring lives that don't mean much. Not in some sort of huge way. But we make our lives interesting and give them meaning by what we do. We have to choose that. If we decide our meaning is based on something or, in this case, someone outside ourselves, then we're in a much more tenuous spot. We're going to have to continuously watchdog to make sure nobody and nothing pops that bubble for that entitiy outside ourselves, which is a neverending and probably pretty exhausting job.

And which echoes the continuous defense of our pedophile-in-chief here, and nationally with other MAGAs.
 
Last edited:
Why is it perception and not reality?
Bringing up the race card when you are losing an argument on for instance illegal immigration is a prime example of liberal/democrat racism. You are right, that is real racism, not perceived.
 
Bringing up the race card when you are losing an argument on for instance illegal immigration is a prime example of liberal/democrat racism. You are right, that is real racism, not perceived.

There's no "card", and the only one losing the argument is you. That's why you decline the card.
 
Like lower prices, ending the war in Ukraine,cut the cost of gas in half. Which of those campaign promises has he kept? You're more concerned about deporting brown people. Wait till food skyrockets because of the deportations.
Releasing the Epstein files...
 
Bringing up the race card when you are losing an argument on for instance illegal immigration is a prime example of liberal/democrat racism. You are right, that is real racism, not perceived.

This is just historical fact: MAGA is just a continuation of Richard Nixon's successful southern strategy, using racism as a coalition partner to advance plutocracy- often on the racists' own backs. The plutocrats/oligarchs provide the money, the racists provide the vote. Win-win. It has had the same consistent electoral base ever since.


 
I cannot speak for everyone; however I defend Trump for following through on the mandates he was elected on, especially southern border enforcement.
What mandate are you referring to?
 
There's no "card", and the only one losing the argument is you. That's why you decline the card.
I am not talking about you specifically, however when a librul cannot come up with an intelligent argument on the immigration issue and utters something along the line of "You just do not want brown people", that's an example of librul racism. It's also an example of a librul race card.
 
Back
Top Bottom