The Patriot Party (Trump considering creating a 3rd Party)

[SpaceCoastVol]

by a mile. Check it out...in Trump's fake economy he didn't improve the growth rate of jobs, even with his increases in government spending. Consider that Obama's last years of growth came with decreases in government spending.

View attachment 341189

You're right. Obama was God. Gosh i wish we could have him back. Oh... wait a minute.. we do.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Oh no. The Rs are fully to blame for failing to replace the ACA and they paid the price by losing the house and some senate seats. They had 7 years to come up with a plan that should have passed on day 1 of Trumps presidency. That's 100% on the Rs.

But they didn't want to replace it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Weird. I thought some of the downturn started in 2007. That's what I get for thinking.

Real estate felt it first in 2007 but it didn't reach the economy at large immediately.

 

[hog88]

But they didn't want to replace it.

They didn't want to do **** except bitch and complain. That is why they lost the house, they were exposed for the frauds that they were.

 

[n_huffhines]

You're right. Obama was God. Gosh i wish we could have him back. Oh... wait a minute.. we do.

Obama sucked and it's pretty sad that he did just as good as Trump at growing the economy while scaling back on growth in government spending in his 2nd term.

 

[Vol Main]

 

[LouderVol]

Real estate felt it first in 2007 but it didn't reach the economy at large immediately.

Looking at the chart if Obama had been one term like trump it would have been true for him too. Not seeing any other real downturns, which is impressive.

 

[Septic]

I'm starting to think that Trump isn't going to appoint a special prosecutor to lock Hillary up.

 

[LouderVol]

Real estate felt it first in 2007 but it didn't reach the economy at large immediately.

That's more or less my industry so I guess the immediacy threw off my perspective.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Anyone who tries to conflate today's party platform with that of those from the 1800's is a moron. Neither party shares much past the name going back 50 years, let alone 150 years.

Don’t disagree. But why didn’t your “sources” just state that instead of providing their weak ass rationalizations?

 

[hog88]

It amazes me just how ignorant some people are of our history and when their ******** is called out they try to move the goalposts and deflect from their original posts. Yes, the parties are not the same as they were in the 1800s but that doesn't refute the facts of which party did what.

Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.

Ku Klux Klan

I guess the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor and the Germans didn't try to kill off the Jews because they have different governments now?

 

[Septic]

It amazes me just how ignorant some people are of our history and when their ******** is called out they try to move the goalposts and deflect from their original posts. Yes, the parties are not the same as they were in the 1800s but that doesn't refute the facts of which party did what.



Ku Klux Klan

Because thumping your chest over an attempt at claiming a moral high ground over something that occurred 150 years ago that happened to share a name with the party today is freaking brain dead. Especially when the same values many in your party share today are exactly what you're trying to suggest your adversary held 150 years ago as a gotcha. Not only is a bad argument, it's self defeating.

 

[Septic]

Don’t disagree. But why didn’t your “sources” just state that instead of providing their weak ass rationalizations?

That's what a source is, it provides both the fact and context to support it. Otherwise it's an opinion...

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's what a source is, it provides both the fact and context to support it. Otherwise it's an opinion...

It was a weak ass rationalization on par with this.

 

[Septic]

I guess the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor and the Germans didn't try to kill off the Jews because they have different governments now?

Aside from that being a terrible analogy - both of those countries are allies now, because they don't share the same values they used to.

Is Germany still ruled by Nazi's or is Japan still ruled by totalitarians?

See how this works? I'll say it again and you can wear the shoe if it fits:

Anyone who tries to conflate today's party platform with that of those from the 1800's is a moron. Neither party shares much past the name going back 50 years, let alone 150 years.

 

[hog88]

Aside from that being a terrible analogy - both of those countries are allies now, because they don't share the same values they used to.

Is Germany still ruled by Nazi's or is Japan still ruled by totalitarians?

See how this works? I'll say it again and you can wear the shoe if it fits:

Republicans started teh civil war and the Dems started the KKK. I know it's popular now but lets not rewrite history.

Yes, let's not rewrite history. It's funny that I cite multiple sources supporting my position and you huck feces by pretending today's parties are even remotely similar to those from the 1800's in anything but name.

I get it though, it makes for a good facebook meme talking point, even if it's historically inaccurate.

I never tried to compare today's Dems/Repubs to their 1800s version. I simply stated that the Dems created the KKK and the Rs started the civil war, both are indisputable facts just as it's indisputable that the Japanese bombed PH and the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews. Just because none resemble their former self doesn't erase their history.

Stop flailing around trying to make a point that's not there to make.

 

[LouderVol]

Because thumping your chest over an attempt at claiming a moral high ground over something that occurred 150 years ago that happened to share a name with the party today is freaking brain dead. Especially when the same values many in your party share today are exactly what you're trying to suggest your adversary held 150 years ago as a gotcha. Not only is a bad argument, it's self defeating.

Slavery is still upheld for moral high ground. How long ago was that?

 

[Septic]

Just because none resemble their former self doesn't erase their history.

That's just it, what difference does "their" history make if all they have left in common is a name?

It's a tragically stupid point compounded by the fact that the racist slight being imposed is ironically more closely associated with your brand today.

I know that you're hung up on the name issue, but you should move on to the substance of the point being made.

 

[Septic]

Slavery is still upheld for moral high ground. How long ago was that?

Who said anything about slavery? That was simply one manifestation of the racism being discussed.

 

[hog88]

That's just it, what difference does "their" history make if all they have left in common is a name?

It's a tragically stupid point compounded by the fact that the racist slight being imposed is ironically more closely associated with your brand today.

I know that you're hung up on the name issue, but you should move on to the substance of the point being made.

You have no substance or point. History is history, own it. I was not trying to make some grander point other than to correct another poster. I wasn't responding to anything you posted.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You have no substance or point. History is history, own it. I was not trying to make some grander point other than to correct another poster. I wasn't responding to anything you posted.

Not once the idiot libs are done erasing/rewriting it!

 

[OHvol40]

Some of you are more obsessed with Trump’s plans than most of his loyal base.

SMH.

How long have we had to hear about Hillary from you mooks... and she didn’t even hold office.

 

[AM64]

Just call it the re-elect Dem party

Exactly. All you have to know about that is revisit what happened when Ross Perot ran. This would simply split the anti-dim base and guarantee a dim win. The imagined goal is great, but the realistic outcome is disastrous. The only way is to somehow keep the GOP hijacked and out of the hands of the losers who have been running the clown show - the people who ran RINOs like Romney. A lot of us want a lot more from the GOP, but division is not the way to get there in a two party system.

 

[lawgator1]

It is hard to see the GOP nominate Trump again. He burnt way too many bridges and the Capitol riots were the last straw for some, including Mitch McConnell.

So Trump has no choice but to try to splinter off the Trumpster base. He's a bigger threat to the GOP than to the Dems.

If he can evade criminal and financial problems, I am not sure he will really have an appetite to run again in 2024. Its a ton of work and one wonders whether, absent the trappings of office, he really cared that much about being POTUS. Plus, he can get the same accolades and feed his ego just by going around and doing rallies, acting as kingmaker in Republican states and districts. He could charge enormous fees to those seeking his appearance in their corner in those contests.

Best of all worlds: ego satiated, money coming in, no responsibility.

 

[Delmar]

I'm in. I think the R party is dead and that's a great thing

I can assure you that moderate Republicans aren’t joining the “Patriot” Party if Trump controls it. All it would do is split Republican votes and the Dems win every time. Maybe that’s what Trump wants. He only cares about himself anyway.