Biden: "You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America."

[Hanafuda]

"It's pretty much meaningless, so why doesn't he just sign it for optics"

Ew.

The best reason why he shouldn't? Because they want him to.

 

[Xzi]

"It's pretty much meaningless, so why doesn't he just sign it for optics"

Ew.

It's why I worry about the future of the US when we encounter a candidate that's both evil and smart. We're having enough trouble preventing this dunce from gaming the system as-is, even when he declares his intent through a bullhorn ahead of time.

The best reason why he shouldn't? Because they want him to.

God forbid we hold all candidates to the same standard, right? Gotta give the nepo baby special treatment just because that's what he's used to.

 

[realtimesave]

Biden is a clown and should've let another democrat have a turn at the election.

 

[tabzer]

It's why I worry about the future of the US when we encounter a candidate that's both evil and smart. We're having enough trouble preventing this dunce from gaming the system as-is, even when he declares his intent through a bullhorn ahead of time.

Ah, so he's smart now. When did that change?

It's nasty and insidious to suggest that him signing something on behalf of the people who hate him is not only reasonable but honorable. To who?? We have very different ideas on the optics that shows.

To me, it looks like you think optics are more important than reality, to the point that I could not possibly entertain any trade/exchange with you.

 

[Chris2055]

The mental hoops Trumpers will jump through in order to support him are astounding. There is no reasoning with these people. We can't even agree that our politicians should not openly support overthrowing the government or what that looks like when it happens. Sigh.

 

[tabzer]

Here. Sign this contract that says you will be honest with people. But you know, the contract is something you are binding yourself to me on.

Sign a contract with the US honoring the notion that you are a person. Give them authority to determine its validity.

It's self-degrading.

 

[Chris2055]

Ah, so he's smart now. When did that change?

It's nasty and insidious to suggest that him signing something on behalf of the people who hate him is not only reasonable but honorable. To who?? We have very different ideas on the optics that shows.

To me, it looks like you think optics are more important than reality, to the point that I could not possibly entertain any trade/exchange with you.

He didn't say he's smart, in fact, he explicitly said the opposite.

I think it's an optics move, yes, but if he had signed it that would've worked in his favor if he wants to be seen as pro-democracy. Instead he was an idiot and didn't sign it which just makes it harder for people to argue in his defense and reduces the credibility of anyone that does.

 

[tabzer]

He didn't say he's smart, in fact, he explicitly said the opposite.

Ah okay, I misread that. I thought he was becoming more honest.

I think it's an optics move, yes, but if he had signed it that would've worked in his favor if he wants to be seen as pro-democracy. Instead he was an idiot and didn't sign it which just makes it harder for people to argue in his defense and reduces the credibility of anyone that does.

I disagree. Signing a contract/oath for someone who doesn't matter (or worse, hates me) is only an attempt for that party at ill-gained leverage. He literally writes about the technique in his books, so it shouldn't be a *gasp* situation. You guys parading on this point look fake AF.

 

[Chris2055]

You disagree with what?

Do you think refusing to sign a document that says he won't advocate insurrection after he was accused of inciting an insurrection looks like he supports democracy?

Or is it that you think it doesn't reduce the credibility of those that argue in his defense?

 

[Hanafuda]

The mental hoops Trumpers will jump through in order to support him are astounding. There is no reasoning with these people. We can't even agree that our politicians should not openly support overthrowing the government or what that looks like when it happens. Sigh.

Oh, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm anti-progressive, anti-socialist, anti-marxist, anti-shitforbrains.

I would LOVE to have another nominee to vote for besides Trump that has a solid chance at winning. Unfortunately that "chance of winning against the name the other side brings" is how we get where we are, i.e. a choice between two octogenarians. But I will be voting for whatever candidate is on the ballot which has the best chance of defeating the Democrat Party of 2024.

I'm a registered Democrat, btw. Haha.

 

[tabzer]

Do you think refusing to sign a document that says he won't advocate insurrection after he was accused of inciting an insurrection looks like he supports democracy?

Right, because it wasn't "democracy" that presented the document. It's an attempt to an additional allegiance, when one is already too much.

Or is it that you think it doesn't reduce the credibility of those that argue in his defense?

That's also true. But more than that. It's bad business and entirely against his M.O.

Check my edit above.

 

[Xzi]

Ah, so he's smart now. When did that change?

I have no idea how you misunderstood me there, but I said we haven't yet encountered that candidate yet who's both entirely self-serving (evil) and also smart. We know Trump took in nearly 8 million dollars from foreign governments while in office precisely because he wasn't smart enough to competently cover that type of thing up.

It's nasty and insidious to suggest that him signing something on behalf of the people who hate him is not only reasonable but honorable.

It's an oath issued by the state of Illinois lmao, they're very much pro-Trump.

To me, it looks like you think optics are more important than reality, to the point that I could not possibly entertain any trade/exchange with you.

I was playing devil's advocate, that should have been obvious. Am I then to assume you think there's more integrity in refusing such a basic oath, to not employ terrorism AGAIN should he lose the election AGAIN? No, there is no integrity in that. Either signing and breaking the oath or not signing and and acting against its intent demonstrate that he's a piece of shit, it was only a matter of whether he was going to be smart about being a POS or not.

 

[Chris2055]

Oh, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm anti-progressive, anti-socialist, anti-marxist, anti-shitforbrains.

I would LOVE to have another nominee to vote for besides Trump that has a solid chance at winning. Unfortunately that "chance of winning against the name the other side brings" is how we get where we are, i.e. a choice between two octogenarians. But I will be voting for whatever candidate is on the ballot which has the best chance of defeating the Democrat Party of 2024.

I'm a registered Democrat, btw. Haha.

Wishing another candidate were available doesn't mean you're not pro-Trump. You're pro-Trump if you support him after what he did following the 2020 election. Especially if you try to gaslight the public into believing he didn't do what he did rather than acknowledging reality. Plenty of conservatives have turned their back on him over that, including a huge portion of his own administration and many high-profile representatives in the House. Privately, many more would like to do so but they've put their own political careers above their integrity.

Party registration doesn't matter. Ideology and actions matter.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2024

Right, because it wasn't "democracy" that presented the document. It's an attempt to an additional allegiance, when one is already too much.

Sedition and insurrection are anti-democracy though. We vote to make changes in this country, we don't use violence, intimidation or force. That's what tyrants and dictators do.

That's also true. But more than that. It's bad business and entirely against his M.O.

Check my edit above.

What does bad business mean in the context of an election? Sounds like meaningless buzzwords to me.

 

[tabzer]

I have no idea how you misunderstood me there, but I said we haven't yet encountered that candidate yet who's both entirely self-serving (evil) and also smart. We know Trump took in nearly 8 million dollars from foreign governments while in office precisely because he wasn't smart enough to competently cover that type of thing up.

Being honest about how he is gaming the system is how he got elected in the first place. Why cover up the type of thing he is gaining popularity on exposing? If he goes down for that, many others will go down, hopefully for worse, for trying to hide that sort of thing.

It's an oath issued by the state of Illinois lmao, they're very much pro-Trump.

Politicians aren't pro-trump, they are pro-themselves. Have you not seen how many people turned on Trump after being elected due to his endorsements?

I was playing devil's advocate, that should have been obvious. Am I then to assume you think there's more integrity in refusing such a basic oath, to not employ terrorism AGAIN should he lose the election AGAIN? No, there is no integrity in that.

You say that you are playing "devil's advocate" and betray that in the next sentence. Let me know when you are representing something real. I already stated why pledging optional oaths is bad.

 

[Chris2055]

Being honest about how he is gaming the system is how he got elected in the first place. Why cover up the type of thing he is gaining popularity on exposing? If he goes down for that, many others will go down, hopefully for worse, for trying to hide that sort of thing.

Mind = blown.

Politicians aren't pro-trump, they are pro-themselves. Have you not seen how many people turned on Trump after being elected due to his endorsements?

I agree with you 100% that politicians are pro-themselves, but being pro-Trump is necessary for them to be re-elected because conservative voters have been gaslit into believing falsehoods about the 2020 election being rigged and not enough republican politicians had the fortitude to stand up to Trump when it would've mattered.

 

[tabzer]

Sedition and insurrection are anti-democracy though. We vote to make changes in this country, we don't use violence, intimidation or force. That's what tyrants and dictators do.

Well, he should sign an oath that I made, saying that he won't do insurrection. And when I interpret his actions as being subversive, I can have authority that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

What does bad business mean in the context of an election? Sounds like meaningless buzzwords to me.

Maybe you understand the words "economy" and "allegiance". Oaths to parties or groups that are not representative of the office that he is taking is a compromise and a potential conflict of interest. It gives that group more leverage than any other group that didn't make the document for him to sign. Again, foot in the door. There is nothing for him to gain. He's not going to convince people who weren't going to vote for him anyway. He's not going to lose votes if he doesn't sign it.

 

[Xzi]

Being honest about how he is gaming the system is how he got elected in the first place.

Wrong, you still have idiots buying the line that he, "didn't take a salary as president." He took money from foreign governments as his "salary," which means he was most likely being manipulated by foreign governments. Actually, scratch the "most likely" part, he hated our allies and loved our enemies/adversaries for a reason. Then there was the whole press conference with Putin where he looked like a whipped puppy.

Politicians aren't pro-trump, they are pro-themselves. Have you not seen how many people turned on Trump after being elected due to his endorsements?

These types of oaths date back to the aftermath of the Civil War, so you can't blame recent politics for this.

Trump has lost a lot of elections for Republicans over the last six years, so it doesn't surprise me that his endorsement is starting to turn toxic. Republicans are just too spineless to give him the boot themselves, so they're hoping Dems or SCOTUS or jail time does it for them. Imagine being scared of morbidly-obese dementia patient who regularly shits himself.

You say that you are playing "devil's advocate" and betray that in the next sentence.

How so? I asked a relatively easy question. If you don't want to answer, just say that.

 

[tabzer]

Wrong, you still have idiots buying the line that he, "didn't take a salary as president." He took money from foreign governments as his "salary," which means he was most likely being manipulated by foreign governments. Actually, scratch the "most likely" part, he hated our allies and loved our enemies/adversaries for a reason. Then there was the whole press conference with Putin where he looked like a whipped puppy.

Sorry, I should have said "more honest". It's progressive.

How so? I asked a relatively easy question. If you don't want to answer, just say that.

You said you "were (was)" playing devil's advocate, then you continued to do so. Nothing changed. I answered your question. I already stated why pledging optional oaths is bad.

 

[Chris2055]

Well, he should sign an oath that I made, saying that he won't do insurrection. And when I interpret his actions as being subversive, I can have authority that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

What extra authority?

Maybe you understand the words "economy" and "allegiance". Oaths to parties or groups that are not representative of the office that he is taking is a compromise and a potential conflict of interest. It gives that group more leverage than any other group that didn't make the document for him to sign. Again, foot in the door. There is nothing for him to gain. He's not going to convince people who weren't going to vote for him anyway. He's not going to lose votes if he doesn't sign it.

Everyone in America is representative of the office that he is running for. He's running for President of the United States, not President of MAGA Town. If you're trying to say in a long-winded way that it wouldn't cost him votes with his base, that's true, but at this point I don't think anything would cost him votes with his base. People still willing to support him at this point will do it unconditionally. However, it would make it easier for independent voters to support him and it would, at least, not make it easier for people to reinforce the fact that Trump is pro-Insurrection.

 

[Xzi]

I already stated why pledging optional oaths is bad.

I think what you're not getting through your head is that he's already signed an oath of office to the constitution. Of course, he ended up violating the 14th amendment, but all refusing to sign this oath does at this stage is signal that he'd be unwilling to take that oath of office again, as it includes anti-insurrectionist language. Which is yet another reason he'd be ineligible for the presidency.