I can't be bothered. Chat GPT says: "This guy is throwing out a mess of half-baked talking points and hoping something sticks. If you want to respond effectively, you could go a few ways—mocking his logic, dismantling his claims with facts, or just pointing out how incoherent it is. A direct but sharp approach might be: "You’re trying to argue that Trump was a 'net value add' while the last Democratic administrations were 'net subtractive'—yet you provide zero evidence, just vibes. Meanwhile, Trump added $8 trillion to the national debt, botched a pandemic response that cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, and ran an administration with record-setting indictments and corruption. If that’s your idea of a 'net positive,' I’d hate to see what failure looks like to you." Then there's his bizarre ID requirement argument. If he’s implying that strict voter ID laws are somehow "fascist," then he’s admitting that the GOP’s own voter suppression tactics are fascist. If he’s saying that liking countries with voter ID laws makes someone a hypocrite for opposing American ones, he’s ignoring that the U.S. doesn’t have universal ID the way many other countries do—and that Republicans fight against national ID while simultaneously demanding voter ID. You could shut that down with something like: "If ID laws are 'holy fascism,' are you admitting that Republican-led voter ID laws are fascist too? Because last I checked, it's the GOP pushing those in the U.S. while blocking any attempt to create a universal voter ID that wound ruin their surpression game. Try to keep your arguments consistent for at least one sentence." Or, if you just want to keep it simple and condescending: "This is a word salad with a side of hypocrisy. Try again when you have an argument that makes sense." What kind of tone do you want to go for—fact-based, mocking, or just dismissive?" Dismissive.
You could have left it at "I can't be bothered". Others have AI as well. Perhaps Elon might have access to something. Instead of your version of garbage in, imagine well thought out questions processed.
I've noticed that many of you hard core Trump supporters tend to have issues with successful woman who say what is on their mind. You just come off as a giant loser when you post this crap.
You're a bit of a nut who drank the Trump Kool Aid. You even believed all the 'election is fixed' nonsense. Funny how all that talk dies down if Trump wins an election. That's what fascists do if Donnie could declare himself President for life he would. Any rational person could only characterize the second term so far as chaotic and destructive without much of a plan.
Trump once asked why U.S. Presidents are limited to two terms and that the "U.S. Constitution" should be changed (revised) so that Presidents have no limits. That's a dictator trying to figure out a way to stay in power beyond two terms. I'm confident he'll mention it again during his 2nd term as he did during his 1st term. wrbtrader
Possibly it is being a parent can make one too tolerant of their incapacity to learn. My daughter was a Krelboyne student but some of her friends.... I still have to tell a couple of them to not take the cork off the fork when visiting, and they are nearly 30.
Reply to your post is inline, below. Your post formatting has been changed to facilitate reply: Note: Please forgive my rambling on, especially towards the end. Been up too many hours, but want to keep it all in this post, instead of deleting, for later idea triggers. QUOTE="Nine_Ender, post: 6084813, member: 190815"]You're a bit of a nut I was a "nut" before Trump. who drank the Trump Kool Aid. I have been more constructively critical of Trump than at least most of the posters on here. More significantly, the Democrat Party has lost it's way for quite a while, denying voters a diverse selection from which to choose. You even believed all the 'election is fixed' nonsense. I did create the Possible Election Fraud in Progress thread in response to voting tabulation anomalies occurring in real time. Apparently, who really won Georgia is still a question concerning the 2020 US Presidential elections. There were other issues, but why bother rehashing that out again? Funny how all that talk dies down if Trump wins an election. The thing you've lost is always in the last place you look. That's what fascists do if Donnie could declare himself President for life he would. I just read the definition of fascism. It seems Biden was closer to Fascism than Trump. Any rational person could only characterize the second term so far as chaotic and destructive without much of a plan.[/QUOTE You have heard of Project 2025, right? It was published in the public domain for almost two years before Trump became President again. Unlike legislation Democrats try to push through without sufficient time to be read before the vote, the Heritage Foundation made their ideas transparent and open for discussion. More importantly, the Left is predictably, automatically, and in many cases, unjustifiably criticizing the Trump Administration in an attempt to discredit for political gain. It is the same old song and it has lost its effectiveness. Hasn't it? And not just in the United States. I guess it's the only trick they know. There are people who simply want to obstruct progress. This can be seen in traffic, with office politics, and in politics in general. It seems some people feel important when they can change the course of an initiative, or whatever. It may not matter whether the initiative was beneficial for many. I will continue this post based upon the assumption that you are not an obstructive type of person. I see you as smart, but seemingly troubled, based upon your many negative politically related posts. We can dance around perceived facts, dual over issue framing, and cast ad hominem attacks, but until we actually make the effort to understand each other, we really are just spinning our wheels. Spinning our wheels for what, 30 views per post? The stakes for individuals and organizations to get along has never been higher. AI is being weaponized. Material science is advancing rapidly. Robotics is delivering ever more capable machines. Military imperatives of order of battle, advanced coordination of combined forces, target identification, real time campaign assessments, etc., means pressure to escalate conflicts will continue to increase, lest the other side gets a existential advantage. Ever smaller groups of people have access to technology that can profoundly affect other groups of people, including very large groups of people, up to the resources of nation states. In other words, if we each have a button that we can kill each other with and we don't get along, our long term survival prospects are pretty dim. Agreed? It even gets more insidious when a third party becomes involved a false flag attack. Especially when tensions are high and there is little time to react. So I've gone from person to person to nation to nation in scope. But nations are often officially represented by a person or a select group of people. Social media has leveraged unofficial opinions that sound plausible or even inevitable. Some unofficial opinions may represent analysis an adversary had not thought of, potentially compromising another party. Such situations creates pressure for censorship, But the many can combat attempts at misinformation, thus creating value for a free internet. Ethics matter. Values matter. Earnest good faith communication matter. Want to talk further?