Here are the top moments from Trump's 'Hannity' town hall - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

‘DICTATOR' FOR 'DAY ONE’

The former president turned some heads with some of his comments during the town hall, most notably with his comments to Hannity's question asking Trump to pledge to "never abuse power as retribution against anybody."

"Except for day one," Trump said. "I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill."

Hannity said "that's not retribution," with Trump quipping back, "I love this guy, he says, 'you're not going to be a dictator are you?'"

"I said, 'No, no, no, other than day one," Trump said.

"We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling," Trump said. "After that, I'm not a dictator."

Hannity said that it sounded like what Trump was saying was that he would go back to his first-term policies, to which the former president agreed.

Trump's comments come after multiple media outlets claimed a second term for the former president would result in a "dictatorship."

Biden's campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez blasted Trump over the comments, saying in a release, "Donald Trump has been telling us exactly what he will do if he’s reelected and tonight he said he will be a dictator on day one."

"Americans should believe him," she said.

TALKING POINTS’: TRUMP RESPONDS TO BIDEN

Trump mocked President Biden for his claim that he wouldn't be running for re-election if Trump wasn't in the race.

"Well, I think somebody gave him a talking point. They thought that would sound good," Trump said as the crowd laughed.

"You know, I just found out that Democrats are funding Nikki Haley's campaign. I hear that Democrats are contributing to Ron DeSanctus', or Ron DeSanctimonious, to Ron DeSanctus' campaign. And then you hear the talking points. That's the only thing they're good at, cheating on elections and great talking points," Trump added.

Biden made the statement earlier in the day to a group of supporters at a Boston fundraiser, saying, "If Trump wasn't running, I'm not sure I'd be running. But we cannot let him
win for the sake of the country."

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

"I'M GOING TO WIN IOWA"

Trump came out swinging in his town hall, but one of the biggest moments of the night was the former president calling his shot in the Hawkeye State. The former president declared to Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would "win Iowa."

Trump touted the "hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and tariffs" from China and "gave the farmers $28 billion."

"That's why I say I'm going to win Iowa," Trump said, eliciting cheers from the Hawkeye State crowd.

"My people say, 'Please sir, don't keep saying you're going to win Iowa, you sound so, really, horrible, crass' — someone said 'crass,'" Trump continued.

"I said, 'But it's true. We're going to win Iowa,'" the former president continued.

Trump noted again that he "gave the farmers $28 billion" and that he "got it from China" during his administration.

"Who else could do that? Who else would be able to do it, number one, who else would think about it?" Trump asked, adding that he told farmers to "buy more land" and "bigger tractors."

BLASTING BIDEN'S ‘MAGA’ CRITICISM

"You know, I see Biden talking about, 'Oh, MAGA! MAGA!' MAGA means Make America Great Again. That's what it means. And that's what people want," Trump said to cheers from the crowd.

"They want to see our country be great again. Right now we're not a great country. We're a country in decline. We are a declining country," he added.

The Biden campaign has ramped up its criticism of Trump as polls consistently show him trailing the former president.

He has frequently blasted the the MAGA movement as "extremist," and attempted to tie other conservative Republicans into that criticism.

TRUMP 2024 ALL THE WAY!!!

reply

[–] Yatzo (1565) 7 months ago

Trump preaching to his choir with softball questions on the Fox propaganda network.
After the J6 siege, Hannity privately told the Trump White House that “stolen election talk” needed to cease and that Trump needed to keep “crazy people” out of his orbit.
Trump and allies, however, apparently didn’t obey.
He’ll be in court next year for trying to steal the election he lost in 2020 with a giant gag in his mouth

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

The Questions weren't anymore softball than the Liberal Press Questions for Biden at his daily press conferences and Karine Jean Pierre makes certain of that

reply

[–] Yatzo (1565) 7 months ago

Fake despicable liars .
You’ve been grifted into the cult - my condolences

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

That's your reply to Biden taking softball questions?? Really?? When you make replies like that, you no you don't have a leg to stand on and YES, The Liberal Press does lob softball questions to Biden and you'd have to be blind not to see it

reply

[–] RockAway (1485) 7 months ago

Of course the Liberal press lobs softball questions at Biden, that doesn't change what Yatzo said bro. Tit for Tat doesn't make your guy good.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4436) 7 months ago

No dictator ever gives up power.

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

That's right because all you have to do is look at Joe Biden and that says it all for a man who insists on everyone driving an EV, dictating to everyone they will drive an EV by 2035, so what's the difference then?? Well?? How about it Lib?? Wouldn't he be classified as a "Dictator" forcing everyone to drive an EV by 2035?? How about THINK next time before you post??

reply

[–] RockAway (1485) 7 months ago

How . . . on Earth . . . is Biden supposed to 'dictate' what happens 13 years from now?

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/17/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-private-and-public-sector-investments-for-affordable-electric-vehicles/

Sorry, it's 2030, not 2035.. Even worse.. Personally, I don't care if someone chooses to drive an EV or a Hybrid or Gasoline powered vehicle, but the man should be giving us the choice, NOT mandating this, but as always, as a liberal, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame Trump and or MAGA for this, right??

reply

[–] RockAway (1485) 7 months ago

The first sentence says: "As part of President Biden’s goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030"

So how is 50% EVERYONE? Also, how is making Electric Vehicles affordable 'forcing' anyone to drive one?

I would never blame Trump for something that helps the environment, that's not something he cares about.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17290) 7 months ago

Thats awesome, I cant wait to vote for President Trump next year. Could you imagine Joe talking unscripted for an hour? He can barely talk for 5 minutes without saying something stupid and still doesn't know how to get off stages.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4436) 7 months ago

Trump sounds like an imbecile when he speaks unscripted.

Drill, drill, drill, does he even realize the US is producing record amounts of oil now and the world emerging market indexes are crashing because of the oil glut reducing prices? It doesn't matter if he realizes it, the morons who support him don't know any better.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11329) 7 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Lige (314) 7 months ago

LOL at "casted".

"I loved the poorly educated."- Donald Trump

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

Closing the border will cost us more than $276 billion in exports each year. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/technology-evaluation/ote-data-portal/country-analysis/3028-2021-statistical-analysis-of-u-s-trade-with-mexico/file

This is why Trump sucks as a businessman.

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

Oh, Ok, so leave the Border open for Terrorists to just waltz in with no fucks given, right?? You suck as an individual with no common sense is what this looks like??

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

Of course not. The border needs to be a filter, not just fully opened or closed. I think just about everyone knows this but you.

Do you really want to stop all ground based trade with Central and South America? Because closing the border is how you do it.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Right now it's a bleeding wound. Any policy that starts with CLOSE THE BORDER,

is a good policy for America.

Trade? We can talk trade when we stop the invasion and flow of poison. When/if we can control that, I'm happy to discuss trade.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

Even Trump does not want to close the border if he is one tenth of the businessman he thinks he is. Trump also favors bringing in illegal and easy to exploit labor for wealthy business owners, including himself.

Did you notice how Trump never pushed for prison time for big business owners who employed illegals? If you put them in prison, the the job market will dry up. But Trump did not want that.

https://thehill.com/latino/429136-more-than-100-undocumented-immigrants-worked-at-trumps-bedminster-resort-during/

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Yet under Trump, I recall the illegal labor pool dying up. Farrmers were whining like little girls. Some claimed that they would lose crops.

So, history seems to disprove your claims about Trump.

One can nitick and criticize but Trump is the clear anti-illegal immigration choice and Biden is the Open Border guy.

Any dem is.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

Do these "some" have names? Your version of history might, what about actual history? Any evidence to support your claims?

Trump actually employed illegals at his properties, how does that make him the anti-illegal choice? Trump did not close the border, he did not build much more wall and he did not get Mexico to pay for it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-07/how-much-of-president-donald-trumps-border-wall-was-built

Trump did threaten to close the border over illegals, but it did not happen. https://apnews.com/article/immigration-north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-7ff47e107a4c432fa323ed6d55fa3f39

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

I'm sure they do have names. I don't recall them, it was news stories about farmers having trouble finding migrant workers to harvest their crops.

Did you really miss those stories? I'm surprised.

You act as though if it were true that that would mean something to you. Would it?

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

I'm trying to decide if you know what you're talking bout. I think you don't and you also do not care to support your claims at all.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

By asking if I recall the NAMES of the farmers mentioned in a news report...like 5 years ago?

I don't know what to say to that.

My point stands. They was news on the pool of illegal labor drying up under Trump. That to me is more impressive than your supporting arguments.

Moving forward, Trump is promising to be even MORE heavy handed on the border if re-elected.

Sounds good to me.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

You said you knew people. It looks like you don't. Why not provide a link to the report then?

You're claiming that your unsupported claim about some unknown to you, people, complaining about a labor shortage is more convincing than my link about Trump actually employing illegals?

Trump makes lots of promises he does not intend to keep. Like the wall he promised to built, but didn't. Like making Mexico pay for the wall, they didn't. You should be more skeptical of Trump's promises instead of using them as some sort of promise for a better future is that unlikely to happen due to his actions.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

By asking for a link, you are implying that it is relevant.

But if I post a link, the other poster then just moves on to his next talking point.

So, what was the point of posting the link? It was a troll boi game to get me to jump though a hoop, for some pycho internal reason that no sane person would care about.

So.....

The point remains. Trump did talk a lot about immigration. While he was President he did a lot that was never covered by the mainstream media, and teh results were encouraging.

Such as the illegal labor pool drying up. As one example.

Tell me about how much it would mean to you, and what you would admit, if I post a lnk validating my claim and maybe I will bother.

Or you could goggle it yourself. It woudl take you seconds. your call.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

You said you have names, so you also think they are relevant. I think you have nothing and are therefore irrelevant.

You sure type lots of words for a person who is too lazy to post a link to the information you claim to already have.

What did Trump do that was never covered by mainstream media? I don't think you can name a single thing. If you can, how did you know about it? Are you one of Trump's insiders?

If you post a link that reveals accurate information, then I will admit I was wrong to think that you were a coward who could not be bothered to defend his own claims.

Or you could google it yourself. Your call if you want to settle for being called a coward, or not.

I care more about seeing if you have integrity, than seeing anything you have to prove. Going to step up?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Well, lot there, I will ignore most of it, and focus on what seems... most relevant.

1. I did not claim to have names.

2. A friend in Law Enforcement informed me on major suppression of child trafficking across border under Trump, that got NO attention by media. He was part of that field himself and it was of interest to him. NOT part it, but aware of it. ect.

3. I don't care about your stupid words about me on this topic. THe point is, will it effect your position on this topic. IF not, then asking for a link is meaningless.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

You always have these vague "people" brought up as sources that seem to evaporate as soon as people question your claims. First it was "farmers", now it is "friends in law enforcement".

Your claims are as interesting as the air I breathe and far less important. Do you have anything concrete that you can prop up your claims with?

My position on this topic is that you have nothing. It's that simple.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

SO, if it will have no impact on your position on this issue, why did you ask for the information?

In a real debate, between real people, asking a question like that is supposed to be a step towards finding the Truth. But you are using it as a simple delaying tactic. You don't care what the response is, your plan is to just keep attacking. You are not open to the possibility of giving any ground or admitting anything to the other side. That makes you a troll.

And the fact that new information will NOT have any impact on your position on the issue, reveals that your position is not based on the facts of the issue, but on some other...completely not reality based catagory.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

I was speaking of your position, not mine.

It is always the right thing to attack something that is untruthful or misleading. So far that is all you have offered.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

The right answer from you would have been something along the lines of,

"If you can show a news story that confirms that the illegal labor pool was seriously shrunk under Trump, then I wil have to admit that Trump, to some extent, repaidn political support of his political supporters with POLICY THAT SERVED THEIR PRECIEVED INTERESTS. "

You have revealed that you were not open to doing that. THus even asking was a bullshit move on your part.

If I had done the work of finding that old story(s) and posted it, it would have been in the good faith effort of moving the discussion forwards in teh search for Truth.

BUT, you don't care about the TRuth. Your motivation is somethhign else.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

The right answer is, "you make a claim, prove it". Almost everyone else knows this, why don't you?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

For the reason I just explained.

Questions are asked, to get answers and then move the discussion forward, based on those answers.

You were not doing that. Your intent was to ignore the answer and just continue with your attacks.

That is not a good faith discussion, that is you being a troll boi.

The seconds it would take me to find and post the links would be wasted. Worse than wasted, it would support your dishonest illusion of having a discussion, when you are just... being a hack of some type.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

No, you're making claims that I think you have no rational reason to believe are true. There is never any thing wrong with anyone asking for prove when someone makes a claim.

No one is a troll for asking a person to support their claims.

I'm not the only one reading your posts. You can prove your claims for anyone else reading this thread.

It seems that you would rather put effort into avoiding support for you claims and instead evade responsibility for your posts.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

You are a troll if you ask a question that you don't care about the answer. That the question is not a real question but just you refusing to deal with the valid point raised.

During the Trump years, the illegal labor pool was significantly reduced. That is Trump repaying the political support of working class Americans with policy that served their interests.

This is the reality of the situation. IF you were a good faith actor, you would admit that, and then adjust your position on Trump accordingly.

BUT, you instead choose to bog the discussion down is demands for links, that you already plan to dismiss.

That is the act of a troll.

A troll that on some level, knows that the shit he is spewing, IS shit.

Becuase if you truly believed in your own arguments you would act like it. You would welcome a honest discussion, instead of working to avoid it, as you clearly are.

It is clear from your behavior, that your stated complaints about Trump, have NOTHING to do with your REAL reason(s) for attacking him and his supporters.

reply

[–] Ranb (8032) 7 months ago

I do care about the answer. I care that people who make claims are willing and able to support them. You playing the victim does not work here.

Am I supposed to just believe your claim that the illegal alien labor pool was significantly reduced? Prove your claim.

My claim is that you have no rational reasons to believe your own claims. I actually believe this. Of course, you can prove me wrong, but I don't think you even want to try.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

That is not what questions are.

You are such a troll you don't even understand how real people talk anymore.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5128) 7 months ago

[–] Corbell (5454) 6 hours ago
So, history seems to disprove your claims about Trump.

One can nitpick and criticize but Trump is the clear anti-illegal immigration choice and Biden is the Open Border guy.

Any dem is.

"Trump has sought to end Obama’s program shielding undocumented young people from deportation and has reversed the trend on internal deportations as he’s sought to remove more people, including those who have been in the country a long time.

However, Trump still has not reached anywhere near the level of interior removals as the early Obama administration, according to Cato’s analysis of data through 2018.

That has created a headache for Biden, who is now paying a political price for that Obama record. His campaign office in Philadelphia was briefly occupied and six immigration rights activists were arrested Wednesday. He’s been confronted on the campaign trail."

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Most lefties understand that sometimes you have to make sacrifices to give the APPEARENCE of caring about an issue.

But some don't and thus you see internal conflict.

BUT, Biden, like Obama before him, only enforce immigration laws to try to get street cred in their pursuit of Amnesty.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

So if Trump does it it is because of a just cause, if a democrat does it there is an ulterior motive? That sounds rather convenient to me. Even if you wanted to argue it is for a different motive shouldn't you be happy it was done? It is like if a person stops by and gives you a wad of cash for free. Could it be for them to look good yes but isn't that cash you did not have before? It comes off as you care about who is doing the actions or policy rather than what is being done. If a person says inspiring true words it does not matter who it comes from but if what being said is true or not.

reply

[–] tvfan (10062) 7 months ago

In spite of the RINOs, MSM, DNC, DS, Dems, leftoids, almost every government agency, and foreign countries that fought him on almost everything since day one, he still provided us with the best four years in decades.

He is not perfect but he proved himself in words and actions which can’t be said by most politicians.
It does matter who “those words” comes from when they have also proven themselves in actions.

The establishment and MSM has inverted the narrative and managed to brainwash the weak-minded.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Obama dealt with people fighting against him for lots of policies he tried to implement as well. And no I am not buying your claims about Trump being some great president.

reply

[–] tvfan (10062) 7 months ago

Obama was and is a member of the uniparty swamp and the DS. He was a CIA recruit and the biggest impostor in western civilization.

The only ones that tried to oppose him were the few patriots that were not compromised and/or corrupt. The military was going to oust Obama.

Everything that is currently happening under the Biden regime is Obama’s third run as a shadow president.

All the disasters that he was unable to complete during his first two terms, he is now inflicting on western society as a proxy.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

My point is about the ulterior motive and the end goal of the politicians in question.

To the extent that Obama and/or Biden actually deported (as opposed to catch and release) illegal aliens, then yes, i am happy they were deported.

But my point stands. Trump is the anti-illegal immigation choice and Biden or any dem really, is the PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION choice.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

And it is mighty convenient you do not question the end goal or motive of Trump. He failed to deliver on many promises of his campaign. This is where your defense is well no president delivers on all their promises. Which while true highlights your biased approach. I myself do think Biden is a failure but I do not view Trump as some shining example of a moral human or good president.

It is on you to prove they were released. Otherwise be happy that they were deported. Since that obviously is something you want. You vote based on your own self interests without wanting to compromise what could be best for the country. What if you flip that? What if an illegal immigrant says I am voting for Biden because it is in my best interest to stay here and not be deported?

I also do not agree with that statement. That is shallow and reductive. Trump is also anti-gun yet I hear him get no flak for the policies he wants to implement. Yet someone will criticize the democrats for the exact same thing with guns. Why does he get a pass on that? I myself do not view immigration the same way you do.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Trump's policies and goals align, No sign of hidden motives therer. He wants my political support and his offers policies to get it. Seems ok.

Biden and Obama want something that most Americans are against, so they talk tough and deport sometimes, but they also are pushing for vague shit like "immigration reform" while getting support from open border groups.

Judging people differently based on them behaving differently, is the whole point of judging.

I don't judge Trump differently because I like him, I like him because of how I judge his behavior, relative to all the other choices available.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

No they do not I disagree. There are plenty of signs of hidden motives. He wants people to claim voter fraud because if he gets people to buy off on that he gets a get out of jail free card if he ever loses. It is not just that he also wants to be president so he can get out of all of his crimes. So no it does not seem ok.

If this were Trump you would not be saying this.

It is but that is not what you are doing. You are bypassing any Trump flaws because he is part of your desired party. Obama and Biden you will not bypass because they are not part of your party. You have made that obvious.

Not buying that sorry. You judge him differently because you are partisan.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Nice moving of the goal posts. I will take that as an admission that my point about Trump and Obama/Biden's positions of illegal immigration,

was completely correct.

I accept your concession.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

No goal post was moved. You said Trump had no hidden motives. Just because Trump's position on immigration is different from Biden's does it mean he does not have some hidden motives as to why he does what he does. So rather than be civilized you act like a troll.

I obviously struck some sort of nerve. This is why I do not support your party either. You guys get all pissy when someone disagrees with you.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

My point was NOT that just becasue Trump's "position on immigration was different than Bidens does nto mean he does not have some hidden motive".

And when you changed teh subject of the last post to voter fraud, that was moving the goal posts.

You did not "strike a nerve". We are both posting on an online discussion forum. It is deeply dishonest of you to pretend that there is something weird about me posting while you are doing that same.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

I disagree that is what you were trying to imply. Since Trump's stance on immigration is consistent than that means he has no ulterior motive. I call hogwash on that.

No I was referencing that to show you he can have ulterior motives just because you agree with how he is handling immigration. He has lied and promised many things and failed. When Biden does this you jump all over him but say nothing about Trump.

I never said there was a problem with you posting on here. I said you get all upset when you encounter someone who does not agree with you. You straight acted like a troll in your previous post. Do not play the victim and act like you are civilized when you act rude like that. There are rude people on the left I have encountered many but so far you have done nothing to make me change my opinion of conservatives. You have shown to be just as bad so far in our brief encounter.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Trump's stance on immigration is CONISTENT with WHAT?

A single factor can't be consistent. It has to be consistent with something ELSE.

You failed to note what it was, because doing so, would make my case for me.

And draw attention to the fact that BIDEN's stance on immigration is INCONSISTENT.

Thus, the two situations are completely different. That is why I judge them differently.

Your dismissing my already explained reasoning and just asserting that it was partisan bias, was kind of a dick move on your part.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

That is consistent with the party he represents.

A single factor can be consistent incorrect. It can be consistent with something else but it does not have to be.

No I just told you what it was consistent with. The republican's/conservative's general beleif set.

Regardless if Biden's stance is inconsistent or not be happy he is deporting people like you want.

I highly doubt you would be as critical of Trump as you are of Biden or any democrat.

And your response about saying concession was not rude? Lots of your posts reek of bias honestly.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

Trump's position is consistent with his policy and actions.

Biden's position is NOT consistent with his party's ideology and politics.

Thus it makes sense to judge them differently. They are behaving very differently.

I am a partisan and ideological republican. But I want RESULTS and good policy from the people I support politically. That requires honesty and serious consideration of results of policies, not blind loyalty, as you are implying.

In what way would you expect me less critical of Trump is he did the same?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

That thing eh does is but there are other ways in which he is not consistent with his policies.

I did not dispute that.

Judging them different is different from letting one off the hook completely. Bottom line you do not get highlight your guy while lowlighting your opposition. Flaws regardless of where it is coming from should be called out. You are much faster to call out a democrat lie than a republican one.

You want good results from the people you support. You should want good results no matter who is president. There are plenty of right wing policies which are bad and are harmful for society. Same goes for the left. I want good results if the policy is good for society not if it aligns with a particular party I lean towards. This picking a team nonsense is what gets this country so divided. You blindly align yourself with any side and take that approach you are bound to be wrong at some point. It is why I do not respect shills for either side. They will die on a hill defending their team even if they are dead wrong.

If Biden promised a wall being built like Trump that he promised you would not be so forgiving of that. Also you want any crime Trump is guilty of excused because he is part of your team. Personally I think Biden and Trump belong in jail.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

I don't expect good results from the dems. They are actively hostile to me and mine. The more they work towards their goals and policies it is designed to hurt me and mine.

Ignoring the "teams" would be fucking retarded of me. These people clearly hate me and everything I hold dear.

It would require me to be BLIND to not notice that.

That you expect me to not notice that, is BLIND of you .

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Someone could turn this right back around on you. Someone who is an immigrant or a muslim could say the republicans are hostile towards that group.

So explain why someone can't pick a team on the other end?

It is blind of you to not see the other attack from your side. They are actively attacking cetain groups as well.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Depends on the immigrant, is the immigrant identifying with AMERICA, or with the want a be IMMIGRANTS?

2. And what happened to your talk of NOT TEAMS?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Depends on the immigrant, is the immigrant identifying with AMERICA, or with the want a be IMMIGRANTS?

2. And what happened to your talk of NOT TEAMS? if you are admitting policies being anti-groups, then ignoring that is.... insane.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Not just immigrants but Muslims as well. Tell me an immigrant does not get hate for wanting to be in America and live a good life. If someone is an illegal immigrant here it is in their best interest to vote against immigration policies.

Certain policies are anti group but this goes both ways. You don't think right wing policies harm certain groups people?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. An immigrant does NOT get hate for wanting to be in America and live a good life.

2. If someone is an ilegal immigrant here, then their interests CONFLICT with American interests. All Americans should vote against them.

3. Thank you for admitting that "certain policies" are "anti-group". My point was that lefty policies are against me and my group. They seem to HATE me with a fiery passion. It would be retarded of me to ignore that.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Hogwash! People that want all illegal immigrants deported have plenty of hateful things to say about the ones that stay. You are wrong.

Nope disagree. That is a reductive way to look at things. The world is not in black and white all the time like you are trying to paint. I will not be voting against someone simply because they are illegal immigrants. Some of my closest friends that are wonderful people are illegal immigrants here.

Certain policies which are right wing are against my group. They seem to hate me with a fiery passion. It would be dumb of me to ignore that. See I can play that same game also. Why is it any different?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. You are being sloppy, conflating illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. AND I suspect you are calling reasonable policy statements "hateful", just because.

2. You can have a conflict of interests with someone without them being bad people or hating them. Illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY, against the democratically enacted laws of this country. Their interests conflict with ours. Being honest and realistic about that, is rational and mature.

3. I actually doubt that the "right wing" hates you with a fiery passion. Just because we have a policy that might be harmful to your interests is not "hate". And of course if one of our poliices is harmful to your interests you should consider that when deciding how to vote. Give me your best example of a righty policy that is against your interest that you consider evidenc of "fiery hate".

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Plenty of people support those policies for hateful reasons. As I stated many people have plenty of hateful things to say about Muslims or illegal immigrants.

Correct you can, however you can also have a conflict of interest and hate them as well. Plenty of my friends who are illegal immigrants have caught tons of hate from right wing people. You need to be honest about that as well. The law of this country is not black and white. There are many laws which are not just or fair. Hiding behind the law as if it is completely just and fair is in my book also unreasonable. Also you were in no doubt probably born in this country. Therefore in your position it is much easier to have that cutthroat attitude. You learn a world about somebody or anyone by walking in their shoes. Seems to me you are not interested in that.

Ah convenient. This gives you a get out of jail free card. So you can play the victim but the left can't. I believe the approach to the war on drugs is harmful to those who struggle with addictions. Not wanting to help those with student loans is also harmful as well. The healthcare system which those who support the insurance companies. I could go on and on.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. "plenty"? Nice and vague. In the real world, this nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for minorities since the mid 60s, and only a fucking asshole would claim that a national policy is based on anti-minority racism.

2. Why is it on ME to understand them and not the other way around? To be clear, I mean both them and you understanding MY "shoes" and "interests".

3. You could go on. Making a list is when asked for a single example is almost universial among lefties. ON some level, they know that they cannot support their positions honestly so they reflexively try to avoid serious and honest debate. I aks again, give me your best example of a policy that YOU think imdicates "fiery hate".

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

You did not ask at first if a policy was based on anti-minority racism. You asked me if it hindered certain groups of people and certain policies do.

Where did I say it was only on you to understand? I threw that quote out there just in general. Some people are not interested in walking in other people's shoes. This is the left as well. You are not interested in walking in anyone's shoes but your own.

No I was just saying there are tons I can say things about. Okay lets start with one then. Do you think the war on drugs has any repercussions? Any cons?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. You are jumping all over the place. Are you making a point about "hostile policies" or that policies can be harmful to certain groups? I note that when I said that the other side had policies that were hostile to ME, that you attacked me for picking "teams".

2. I do understand them. But that does not mean that I agree with them nor that I have to ignore MY interests in favor of theirs. Your assumption that me position was based on an inability to understand was just a self serving assumption of yours.

3. You stated that republican poliices were "fiery hate". The drug policy is based on a sincere belief that drugs are bad for people and should be ilelgal. We do not support drug laws with the intent of hurting people. Also, if you want to criticize a policy's outcomes, you are likely to get a far more constructive discussion is you criticize the outcome instead of attacking the people that support it, personally. Unless your goal is NOT a solution but division.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

I said policies can be harmful to certain groups. This includes right wing policies.

I do not believe you care to understand them. Guess what they can understand your point and not agree with you or ignore their interests either. This logic goes both ways partner.

Then how come we have seen the negative effects of the drug war yet people on the right still actively support it? You can't feign ignorance because there is research on the results of the cons of the drug war. Some know the cons and do not care about the harms it causes to people. So let me ask again are there any negative outcomes to the drug war?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. I'm not arguing against those claims. So, what is your point?

2. Well, you believe wrong. So, now what?

3. And I am well aware that the logic goes both ways. i mean, I thought that went without saying. YOu would have to be retarded to not understand that.

4. LOL. So, because YOU think that the evidence is clear, that means that anyone that disagrees with you MUST be motivated by evulness? LOL. Right there, that is the definition of a closed mind. When I talk abou the fiery hate from the left, i am talking about the HATE I see expressed from the left, CONSTANTLY, not shit I imagine based on assuming that they agree with me, even though I know that they DON'T agree with me.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Then why are you only pointing out policies being harmful to your group?

I do not believe I am. So far you are not convincing me my stance is wrong.

Then why should someone who is Muslim or an illegal immigrant vote for Trump?

The evidence is clear. The war on drugs causes damaging things to society. There are facts to back this research. No this is not a simple disagreement, people on the right ignore these blatant facts. So let me ask this why would they ignore these facts? Other than hate or malice why would they ignore these facts? Elaborate.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. You were asking me about my motives.

2. I don't know. You could grill me on what said others might think or experience, to test whether my understanding or lack there of. I assume that you will just make more assertions and abandon your previous point.

3. Why are you asking me that? Especially as you CLAIMED that you did not believe that I would or could understand "others"?

4. You already demonstrated that your mind is closed. You do not need to keep doing it.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

And you only mentioned the harms to your group. I then question you because you only ever are concerned about your side.

I will have a discussion but so far you have not been civilized in my book.

I want to see that what you said is true. You said you understood their side. That is why I am asking you why they should vote for Trump?

No it is not. I am asking you why people would ignore facts even when research shows the negative aspects of the drug war. Rather than insulting me answer why someone would ignore those facts?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Correct. In a discussion about my motives, I discussed the idea of polices harming my groups. You attacked me for that. Your assumption that I only care about my group because I only mentioned those in that context is absurd. I think that you do not respect my right to have interests and/or to defend them. YOU think that people like me, should ONLY be happy to take the hit, for hte good of traditionally disadvanteaged groups. And that it is thus wrong for me to resist your progressive agenda.

2. I never said that they should vote for Trump. You made that up in your own mind, probably to justity to yourself your insanely high level of hostility towards me and mine.

3. People ignore facts all the time. There is no way that you are stupid enough to not know that. Thus, this line of attack must be based on a deeply emotional and irrational issue you have. What is it?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

No because it is quite obvious the only thing you care about is your group's interest. It is why you do not care to see it from any other lens except your own. I said you should want what is best for everyone just one particular group.

Then who should they vote for then?

And sometimes people ignore facts for a reason. You ever stop to ask why people do things? Or do you just not examine motive and move on?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. You are assuming the worst about me, becuase you hate me. And then holding me to account for shit you made up in your head. If you want to talk to the voices in your head, please leave me out of it.

2. Whoever they want. The discussion we were having was you attacking me for even mentioning that issues can be adverse to groups and thus "teams". Yet now it seems that you are fine with OTHER people having interests and voting according to them. It only seems to bother you when I and people like me do it. Is that your position, and if NOT then explain what is actually happening on your side of this discussion.

3. Sure. And if the idea that pops in my head is becasue the people I don't like are just stupid and evil, then I question my own motives there. You clearly don't.

Also, if you actually have/had any real concern for druggies, you would do well to NOT open up by calling those who oppose you on the issue, wacist. It makes you look like a retarded asshole AND it shuts down any chance of actual constructive discussion of the issue. Just saying.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

No I do not hate you I just see how you behave. Your arguments and behavior have not been good to say the least.

No I just do not like when either side is biased and you clearly are. I do not trust you to call out corruption on the republican end. I can speak out for my interests and not hate anyone. You seem to not grasp that. It bothers me when anyone is biased and will not call out bad stuff when it is their team. This is not limited to you but I am witnessing you do it.

Oh I do question it is you who does not.

I never did call anyone who opposed me on the drug war racist. I said those that ignore it or actively support it are fine with targeting certain groups. I was referring to poor people. Nice assumption there though but you failed. Nice try. So before making yourself look like an idiot and putting words in my mouth pay attention to what I say. Never once did I say the people who support the drug war are racist.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Are you sure? Or are you being confused by teh voices in your head?

2. You are full of shit. Your side has groups with interests but you whine like a fag when I even mention mine.

3. You do not question. You are a mindless lemming.

4. Bullshit. Your smear was clear. You cast shit on my/our motives which is clearly what matters to you MORE than any actual helping of druggies.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Yep I am sure. I am basing my opinion of you from your behavior and the way you handle disagreements.

Lol who is the one assuming things now? Silence that voice in your head. Where did I say my group has no interests? Every group has interest but with people like you, you only care about your personal interests. You do not care if it hinders society so long as you are ok in the end. It is the I am going to get mine mentality. Oh and fyi this is just as bad when the left does it. You are no better than those people though.

Lol how civilized of you.

Nope when I stated it targets people I was referring to the poor. It is you that mentioned race. Your race bait is noted and denied. Funny how you thought you had me pinned. It is okay it is your right to be a fool. You attempted to race bait and make an assumption and failed miserably. Take your humble pie with dignity.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Said the man that is just dismissing my stated intent about my own words. Man, the lack of self awareness in lefties today, it just boggles the mind.

2. I never claimed that you said you did not have interests. What are you even raving about now?

3. You have asserted that I only care about my interests. You have supported this, with the brilliant logic of asserting it over and over again. Would you like to do taht some more, or maybe... i don't know, stop being a dick?

4. I stated my reasons, and your assumptions that it was some group hostility was wrong.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

You want to be taken seriously with that condescending attitude? You say things and then want me to not read into what I think you mean?

Then tell me do you care about what is best for the world or only yourself? It seems to me you only care about what benefits your group with little to no regard to anyone else.

Okay so when you say right wing is better than left how else am I supposed to take that? So your group just so happens to be better? How convenient. What if a left wing person took that approach?

How is it not group hostility? Why ignore facts and keep on going with the drug war? Logically explain why someone when do that when we have all this data of the negative effects it has on soceiety.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. I have repeatedly stated that your read on my words was wrong. Your response was to constantly reassert your initial claim. You NEVER asked me what my actual intention was then. What kind of brain damaged person doesn't understand the concept of clarification?

2. Took you long enough to ask, monke boy.

Answer: BOTH. But today, it seems that much of public policy is either actively hostile or at least completely ignores the interests of me and mine. Also, EVERY other group, is allowed, even encouraged to organize and aggressively advocate for their interests, but when I even MENTION the interests of my group, I am attacked with retarded and extremely hostile lines of reasoning.

3. If a left wing person made such a claim, i would challenge them to support it and then when they presented their argument I would challenge it, because I assume that it would be... false.

Becuase, EVERYTHING.

4. Because my intent is based on my belief that drugs are bad and my desire to help the various communities effected, up to and including the nation as a whole.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

Ok and I am skeptical my thoughts were wrong. Especially with your childish insults you fling out so quickly.

Also untrue. Plenty of groups outside of yours are met with hostility. So every thing your group supports is beneficial to everyone? Immigrants and Muslims get met with plenty of hostility.

You assume it would be false. They assume your belief would be false. Your assumption would not be deterred no matter the evidence supported. I believe you are that dug in.

And your intent gets challenged when you bypass facts and a history of data.

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1. Wow. You think you were right? What a shocker. AND even when directly prompted, still no request for clarification. LOL. Your mind is utterly closed.

2. Name a group that I do NOT belong to, that our society does not accept and even celebrate them organizing to advocate for their interests.

3. OR, you could be projecting.

4. So, in your world, everyone that disagrees with you, is motivated by evulness.... How wonderfully typical of you. You are just like I imagine a lefty to be.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

No I actually did. You forget where you called me monkeyboy? Do you care about policies which benefit everyone or only your group?

Plenty of groups get hate from another. Whether it be immigrants, Muslims or poor people. Do not act as if your group is the only ones that gets hate sent their way. Do drug addicts get a voice or the right treatment?

Or I could be right.

Lol nice try. If someone disagrees with me on food or something that is completely based off of opinion and not results why would I demonize them? I do not hate people who disagree but when you ignore facts and it negatively affects people, am I not supposed to read into that? You get angry when people ignore things which negatively effect you right? How is the drug war different?

reply

[–] Corbell (9849) 7 months ago

1/ I answered that. Here it is AGAIN.

Answer: BOTH. But today, it seems that much of public policy is either actively hostile or at least completely ignores the interests of me and mine. Also, EVERY other group, is allowed, even encouraged to organize and aggressively advocate for their interests, but when I even MENTION the interests of my group, I am attacked with retarded and extremely hostile lines of reasoning.

2. My point was about how they/I am treated by society. You are consistently trying to move teh goal post to instead be ANY hostility from any source, even a lone individual. That is you revealing that you know I am right, but not having the balls to admit it.

3. Don't be retarded.

4. Don't be retarded AGAIN.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1107) 7 months ago

If that is true then you have to be against certain right wing policies which damage certain groups. So are you against any right wing beleifs?

Nope I referred to society. You honestly telling me immigrants or poor people are not treated poorly by society as whole?

Do not be foolish then.

Lol so I will take this as you having no retort. You supporting the drug war is harming certain people my point stands.

reply

[–] robocat893 (14375) 7 months ago

I feel sorry for your family especially if you have a partner and kids. I'm sure they can't stay in the same room with you when you start crying about Trump's spectacular loss in 2020 and all of the other conspiracy theories you claim are true. But then you never provide any evidence to your insipid claims so I'm positive that your family is laughing at you! 🤣

reply

[–] Yatzo (1565) 7 months ago

Trump lied every twelve seconds in that bozo interview.
Wtf is wrong with you people?

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

Oh, so he's no different than Biden, right??

reply

[–] Yatzo (1565) 7 months ago

Every twelve seconds, so the answer is yes, he’s different than Biden and the rest of the human race

reply

[–] BKB (7391) 7 months ago

Ok crybaby. Fuck off with your nonsense

reply

[–] robocat893 (14375) 7 months ago

Triggered! 🤣

reply