Calling it "Politically Motivated"

[Markk]

So I wasn't lying....why would anyone post such a thing if they did not support the thought? You supported in print here twice, for pulling the plug.

Markk, seriously. For someone who always accuses others of grasping for straws, this statement of yours is a better example of that than most any I’ve seen as of late.

People post comments from others all of the time as simple examples or in order to compare or contrast the comment to their own opinion. If the reference above is unedited (you haven’t linked to a source post, and you should), it does not follow that the person posting it must agree with the comment, and in exactly the way that you interpret it.

Lol...so your saying that Jersey Girl was lambasting that person? Sure!

Lol...The contrast is, as the other example I stumbled upon is that she hates Trump, which can be easily proven, and she has no issues implying she supports pulling the plug on him.

And you are certainly grasping for straw here, that Jersey Girl was somehow just randomly pointing out that someone posted a comment about pulling the plug on the President.

Good luck with this one.

This is what she wrote,

Re: Trump is not a fascist
Post by Jersey Girl » Thu Apr 17, 2025 3:58 am

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 7:21 pm
Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 6:04 pm
We're PAYING El Salvador to hold Mr. Garcia?
Yes! We are!
So we taxpayers funded the kidnapping of a man who was found to have no gang related ties and permitted to remain in the U.S. per court ruling, shove him off to a terrorist prison population in El freaking Salvador, by a government who alternately claimed that it's actions were an "administrative error" but they couldn't get him back and now flip flopped saying that he was part of MS13 and they're now defying and soon to be charged with contempt of court orders and we're the tax paying suckers who are paying for this miscarriage of justice.

Or whatever I said there in likely the longest run on sentence in the history of the board. Okay I got it.

In a possibly unrelated thought... I saw a comment on youtube that said to the effect...While I don't wish death on any person let's just say that I wouldn't mind unplugging DJT's life support machine to charge my phone.

What do you think she meant by that statement?

[canpakes]

What do you think she meant by that statement?

What do you see written?

[Some Schmo]

Markk thinks "the haters" are lying.

I'd love to know one lie I've told about Trump.

I've been wondering for a while now, do Trump voters not know what he's about, or is it just that they think all the terrible things he does are lies?

For Markk, I guess it's all lies, despite the reams of evidence. Pretty remarkable how daft some people are.

[Kishkumen]

LOl...again ad homs is all you have. If you need an excuse why you can't ever keep up with a conversation, in an objective way....fine. You think I hate you or dis like you I guess, I don't have time for that in my life. I try to have conversations with you and it just ends up with you getting upset and calling me names.

It is just the way it is I suppose.

honorentheos has provided you plenty of quality information full of facts. What has he changed your mind about? Dude, you support a president who is routinely violating the Constitution he swore to uphold. If you actually cared about facts, you would not support Trump. What is to be done with you? What will convince you that you are on the wrong track if you can't be dissuaded from supporting Trump, the most corrupt US president of the modern era? One who is peddling influence, selling pardons, accepting giant gifts from foreign governments? It is all out in the open, and yet you remain blind to it. I don't think that pointing out your bad judgment and lack of reasoning skills is ad hominem. These are just facts.

OK, if we are approaching this question from a position in which the argument is over whether upholding the Constitution is important or not, or whether presidents should be allowed to sell their influence to the super wealthy, then maybe you have a point. Unfortunately, I am NOT approaching it from that position. In my view, the common ground should be the president keeps his oath to uphold the Constitution and he does not sell his influence to the super wealthy. If that is not where you are, then maybe we just don't have the basic framework for a discussion.

So which is it? Pro-Constitution or not? Anti-influence peddling or not? If you choose not for either or both, then there is no conversation to be had.

[canpakes]

This was the Chips Act, where we basically gave over 50 billion dollars of tax money as incentives for companies to produce semi conductors and hopefully by 2030 gain 20% of the semi conductor trade, which we we used to dominate in.

The bill reads in part....Only a small share of global chip manufacturing capacity is currently located in the United States (about 10% in 2020, down from 36% in 1990).8 In addition, none of the most advanced chip manufacturing capacity is located in the United States.9 In the 70's we held like 85% of it domestically.

The bill was introduced by U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N. M.), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).

Is his plan to have the tax payer foot the bill to get back what we lost?

It turns out that Trump’s alternative to the CHIPS Act is … a bit of socialism.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) slammed President Donald Trump’s decision for the U.S. Government to acquire a 10% stake in Intel Corp. (INTC), warning that it sets a dangerous precedent of government ownership in the private sector.

‘It’s A Step Toward Socialism’

Paul expressed concerns that conservatives are increasingly endorsing policies that stray from the principles of the free market, while appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday.

On Trump’s decision to acquire a 10% stake in Intel, Paul says “it’s a step toward socialism,” while warning that once the government gets involved in private business, “you take those forces away that breed excellence,” he says, adding that it’s why he thinks “it's a big mistake to have government ownership of things.”

Last month, the Trump Administration decided to convert the grants pledged to Intel as part of the CHIPS Act into an equity stake in the company, but Paul argues that even passive government ownership can distort market incentives.

“We've been giving poor people Coca-Cola for a long time, and maybe 10% of the money Coca-Cola gets is given to them. Maybe poor people should own part of Coca-Cola. No, it's a terrible idea,” he said. “It's sort of compounding one bad idea with another.”

He warned that the move undermines the identity of the Republican Party. “I worry that the free market movement, the movement that was a big part of the Republican Party, is being diminished over time.”

Several other prominent experts have echoed similar concerns regarding Trump’s move in regards to Intel, with economist Peter Schiff calling it “not only unconstitutional, but a bad idea.”

Schiff said, “Trump wasn’t hired to run a hedge fund. This sets a very bad precedent as it moves our nation further away from free-market capitalism,” in a post on X, last month.

[Doctor Steuss]

It turns out that Trump’s alternative to the CHIPS Act is … a bit of socialism.

<snip article>

I'm certainly not as well educated as others when it comes to political and economic theory and systems, but I believe Trump's latest push for the government to own companies is communism.

His massive handouts to agriculture to help them survive his idiotic policies and destruction of the economy, on the other hand, is socialism.

God bless MAGA for being more communist and socialist than they pretend the Democrats to be.

[canpakes]

Looks like Trump’s tariffs - and his Administration’s agriculture policy failures - are also driving Arkansas farmers to beg for their own slice of the socialism pie.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PqK21LfqnGw

MAGA’s dependence on socialism for it to ‘function’ is getting interesting.

[Jersey Girl]

Looks like Trump’s tariffs - and his Administration’s agriculture policy failures - are also driving Arkansas farmers to beg for their own slice of the socialism pie.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PqK21LfqnGw

MAGA’s dependence on socialism for it to ‘function’ is getting interesting.

I watched one video where a farmer (location, not sure) said his income amounted to 5 bucks an hour.

Watched your above linked video. Trump needs to get his feet in those fields and speak directly to farmers. He's capable of understanding how much that equipment cost to purchase and/or lease, and maintain. It's astronomical.

I don't know about those Arkansas farmers there exactly but DOGE totally squashed their income from commodities. From the size of the land/equipment they showed in the video I assume they were part of that big bite out of their income.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In the spirit of OP, may I present:

https://www.tiktok.com/@lukewarmnomore

If you click on the link you’ll see a man’s journey of committing himself to Jesus.

In this next link you’ll see the same man asking for permission to go door-to-door to murder all the people he doesn’t like.

https://www.Facebook.com/TheLeftDotOrg/ ... ebhOSgHj0F

I’ve seen a lot of talk about politically motivated violence, both on this forum and elsewhere. That’s just the nature of being human. But I don’t recall seeing many comments by progressive Christians about clearing homes and murdering ideological opponents. Weird.