Trump.

[Geronimo]

It's funny... Even though Harris has changed her positions on many subjects, the right still attempts to label her as a Marxist, denying the fact that she has changed her positions.
On the other hand, this guy WAS for Trump originally... but since he went Anti Trump, they ignore that he was originally for Trump.

to be fair I'm not sure why it's relevant when a non public figure was a former Trump supporter. Did they attempt to shoot at people when they were a Trump supporter? Did they have power within the Trump campaign but they got fired creating motive? no. you can't use a "former" ideological status to somehow paint that ideology with any kind of guilt or explanation for things they later did in direct opposition to that ideology.

[Ming]

That's my point... The far right are trying to paint Harris based on past positions that have SINCE CHANGED.
Gee... people do change. And it is a FACT that he was a Trump supporter who changed his opinion later.
And nobody here is trying to say that he was a Trump supporter when he did what he did. But it seems like THE FACT can't even be said, even if it's true. It does kind of point out that after seeing Trump in action, he changed his position.

[WigIaf]

****ing stupid federal pigs don't know how to do their damn job

what a federal embarrassment

federal workers are pathetic ****s

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/23/nx-s1-5122521/ryan-routh-letter-trump-cell-phone-detention

[WigIaf]

I support the Abolition of federal law enforcement retirements.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

That's my point... The far right are trying to paint Harris based on past positions that have SINCE CHANGED.
Gee... people do change. And it is a FACT that he was a Trump supporter who changed his opinion later.
And nobody here is trying to say that he was a Trump supporter when he did what he did. But it seems like THE FACT can't even be said, even if it's true. It does kind of point out that after seeing Trump in action, he changed his position.

But why is she just now changing her position on many things? She has been very clear in the past on her views. And what if we vote for her and she just flips again? Would you give Trump the same 'pass' if he changed his ways now?

[Lorizael]

That's a solid point. Trump has been very consistent in his position that dirty immigrants are polluting our country, Jews who don't vote for him are traitors, windmills are giving all the birds cancer, and the late great Hannibal Lecter wants to have you for dinner. I respect his ideological convictions, despite their repugnance and/or incoherence, which is why I'm voting for him.

[Ming]

But why is she just now changing her position on many things? She has been very clear in the past on her views. And what if we vote for her and she just flips again? Would you give Trump the same 'pass' if he changed his ways now?

Gee... Trump used to be a Democrat... was fine with abortion and had no problem with gays. You seem to have given him a pass for that.

[Geronimo]

But why is she just now changing her position on many things? She has been very clear in the past on her views. And what if we vote for her and she just flips again? Would you give Trump the same 'pass' if he changed his ways now?

if anything this should encourage middle-of-the-road or independents to vote for her. If she's changing her positions she may be less motivated by ideology and more motivated by personal ambition and power. Trump has changed his position countless times since entering politics and he's just as opaque about any shifts in ideology that would explain it.

Also, for what it's worth the left and the never-Trumpers *have* generally given Trump a pass for changing positions. If it comes up at all it's when they want to ignore a change in Trump's positions that they think would make Trump more electable.

[Dinner]

Gee... Trump used to be a Democrat... was fine with abortion and had no problem with gays. You seem to have given him a pass for that.

He is still fine with abortion and never has had a problem with gays. The court just pushed abortion down to the state level where people think it belongs. Why do you feel the need to make up fake positions for the other side?

[Ming]

Why do you believe all his lies...

[Dinner]

I don't. Oh, and much of what you wrongly believe are lies simply are not. You do love your fake propaganda though.

[Ming]

You do love to believe his lies

[giblets]

https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1840132166014935270

Trump: Most people don't have any idea what the hell a phone app is

[Donegeal]

F this. This has LONG since gone from a political election to a test of morals. The F-er is now advocating for the Purge. If you STILL back him, YOU ARE IMMORAL!!!!

(Sorry... I can't post what I want on my FB page, so I'll come here to scream)

[Geronimo]

F this. This has LONG since gone from a political election to a test of morals. The F-er is now advocating for the Purge. If you STILL back him, YOU ARE IMMORAL!!!!

(Sorry... I can't post what I want on my FB page, so I'll come here to scream)

OMG. please clarify what you are saying. are you trying to claim that Trump talked about the Purge and proposed a policy inspired by it or in any other way showed that he was even aware of the "the Purge" film? Or instead did he propose some vague hairbrained scheme which reminded many people of the premise of "the Purge" but which instead was a call for somehow lifting many restraints on law enforcement for one hour? HIs proposal was stupid enough and was all his own brainchild. You only feed the paranoia that fuels his support by helping to spread a demonstrably falsifiable rumor that Trump advocated for the "The Purge" especially the fictional policy that served as the premise of the film of the same name.

12 hours of no law enforcement nationwide annually, much less the fantasized fictional aftermath that the rest of the film portrayed actually bears very little meaningful resemblance to Trump's vague proposal apart from the fact that both would be stupid, unconstitutional, and involve a relatively short term arbitrary lifting of restraints. One for 12 hours annually on everyone and everything, the other on law enforcement as a one off for one hour.

I doubt the outcomes of either of these absurd proposals, if somehow realized, would bear any resemblance to each other or to the movie apart from both being incredibly damaging and unpopular and useless for long term crime reduction. Maybe Trump's proposal would provide somewhat more than an hour "relief" from certain crimes but I would expect much of it to get even worse afterwards.