What has offended you? Please, stop alluding and spell it out so there can be a discussion.
There have been bucket loads of threads here regarding various Trump comments that have bothered many conservatives. Instead of addressing those comments directly, you routinely attempt to hijack those discussions by bringing in matters unrelated to the point being discussed. You'll either start attacking other candidates, or bringing up something about Trump that has nothing to do with the particular statement he made, or action in which he engaged.
Everyone here has seen you do that repeatedly, and I'm not going to regurgitate every Trump critique that has been posted here. You had your chances, and it is of no interest to me to have discussions with you that I've already had with other people.
But just for one example among many, many incidents, there's what he said in 2021 to Georgia voters about the Georgia gubernatorial election between the incumbent Republican Kemp, and challenger Stacey Abrams:
"Of course, having her I think might be better than having your existing governor, if you want to know the truth,” he noted, prompting overwhelming boos from his crowd of mostly maskless supporters.
“Might very well be better,” he added."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573958-trump-quips-abrams-wouldve-been-a-better-governor-than-kemp/
Stacey Abrams over Brian Kemp - that's Trump.
With Trump, the arena of ideas is open to you.
Yes, because he is completely untethered to any political principles or philosophy. That's why Trump's "ideas" include a bunch of big government, centralized-planning monstrosities that any decent conservative would reject out of hand. Which is exactly why his reelection is so scary.
Present your alternative to stopping the loss of a generation to drugs, mental illness, violence and despair, along with the destruction of our cities. Show us how the consensus building you crave is done.
Thank you so
very much for illustrating perfectly the point I raised above about you ducking inconvenient issues. There already was a thread in which a ton of us said exactly why this particular idea of Trump's was terrible, and discussing what should be done instead.
What was missing, and what is still missing, is your defense of this specific idea offered by Trump. But instead of defending that specific Trump proposal on its merits, you again try to flip it around and ask other people what
their alternative ideas are, even though we already did that.
Sorry, Homey doesn't play that game. You want to defend Trump, then you defend this specific idea of having 10 massive government planned "Freedom Cities" set up in national parks, complete with personal helicopters for transportation.
Just try, for once, to directly defend that idea on its own merits, and tell us why it is a good idea that we should want to implement.
@Maj. Bill Martin Just how far are you willing to sell out America for a conflict that isn't ours and advances no national interest?
I've explained many, many times, in many threads, exactly why I believe arming Ukraine is in the US national interests. I don't believe that Trump's position is based on the US national interest. I think Trump's position is based on him valuing personal relationships with people over everything else. If you have a good relationship with Trump, you're the good guy. If you don't, then you're not. Putin flatters him, Kim flatters him, so they're good guys. Conservative Republicans like Kemp and DeSantis, who don't kiss his butt, become worse than liberal Democrats.
With Trump, everything is personal and nothing is principled, including his siding with Russia over Ukraine.
