Will Trump Succeed In Restoring America, Or Will His Enemies Drag Him (And The Country) Down?

It's always dangerous getting involved in domestic disputes, but I'll take a chance at interjecting an observation between you two lovers:

You're both right. We need a show of force in the form of mass demonstrations, but it also must be more than just a 24hr gathering, and it also needs to be on a local & regional geographic basis.

So, how are both objectives accomplished? Think 'Animal House': Road Show!

Trump needs to get back on the road doing rallies around the country. More specifically, he needs to focus on states & house districts that will be contestable in 2018. Doing so, we get a 2-fer:

- 10s of millions will either get to directly participate or more importantly, see the width and depth of support of like minded citizens;

- Trump will be re-charged and re-energized by the support. We should all recognize the man is a manic extrovert. Anyone working from 7am to midnight, 6 days a week, at age 70 (soon to be 71) is, how should I say this, an interesting personality; we are just lucky this guy is on our side. Be that as it may, he thrives on the accolades and support.

Now, I've been posting this solution for awhile, but since The Don is many steps ahead of everyone, he of course has already planned and is now executing this program. Florida is just the first stage - I can't wait to see the roll-out on a wider basis.

So, can you two kiss & make up? You're both right - channel the passion and forge an alliance, don't waste your time fighting each other.

Dearest FRiend,

It was never my intention to refute, or even to comment on everything you've ever said.

I replied to a single post in my original response, and quite frankly don't give a toss about your other posts, or other opinions. You may choose to view this as "lazy", as you have repeatedly asserted, but you'd be wrong...

They just aren't important to me. I think that should be quite clear to anyone other than a purposefully obtuse imbecile, or a troll.

"We need to participate in the digital/information/demonstration war that is instead of bragging about winning a shooting war that may never happen. It’s little more than telling the left to terrorize as much as you want short of shooting at people, because anything short of that isn’t going to excite the right enough to do much more than complain.”

Haven't you noticed that this statement is incoherent and has no meaning?
Has no one pointed that out besides me?
You're not advocating for any defined action whatsoever.

You'll notice I joined the conversation after you began mocking another poster for advocating specific action.
You can deny that was your intent if you choose, but you cannot deny that those were your words
I'll happily leave the conversation now that your chosen activity is to argue about what the argument is about.

“Do you have anything to add, aside from the typical ad-hominem?” add: Your incoherent rambling

I'll take that as a no.

“It was never my intention to refute, or even to comment on everything you’ve ever said.”

Clearly. Just to take you inability to follow at face-value and shut up.

“Haven’t you noticed that this statement is incoherent and has no meaning?
Has no one pointed that out besides me?”

Nope. Because most people on this site can read standard English. Here, since I have a moment, let me break out the metaphorical crayons:

“We need to participate in the digital/information/demonstration war that is instead of bragging about winning a shooting war that may never happen.”

Translation: The political war we are in in multi-faceted. There are places online that control the overall narrative far more strongly than most people understand. That causal talk there can filter through multiple sites and eventually become policy and or law. Too often the left controls that pipeline from the oil field to the gas station, and thus can control public opinion. People looking for an actual shooting war will find themselves standing very lonely when the public sees you as the “bad guys” because that is what the propaganda they have received with no significant push-back from us has told them.

“... It’s little more than telling the left to terrorize as much as you want short of shooting at people, because anything short of that isn’t going to excite the right enough to do much more than complain.”

When people on sites like this proudly boast that they cant wait to grab their gun when the “left has gone too far”, in the face of the left that is able to freely engage in cyber-warfare against people and groups that get to effective on their own in countering their online or media narrative (see Milo), and thus they can keep effective public and online opinion from getting away from them, it shows that:

A) We may be too fixated on talk of an actual shooting war, and not putting that energy into a greater effort to control the media narrative so that the weight of public opinion and fear of public backlash will push the left back. So far the right has no effective control over any space online outside of carefully curated sites like this, and thus leave more general access sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and the comment sections of news sites (as many that are left) to become echo-chambers of left-wing posters and provide the “social proof” to people on the fence that the left is the “majority opinion” and that people on the right are “literally Hitler”.

B) That the left knows that they only have to stop short of engaging actions that constitute the acts of an organized paramilitary in order to keep the right from responding in kind with the arsenal they know conservatives have.

In short: They dont need engage in a shooting war with us, only the need to ruin the lives of a few that speak up online to keep others from getting any ideas, and allow someone on the right to stupidly start waving a gun around so they can then flip the propaganda switch and have public opinion take care of us for them.

“You’ll notice I joined the conversation after you began mocking another poster for advocating specific action.”

Yeah? I knew that hours ago. I’ve told you get some context. You said you dont need to. Not my problem if you cant.

“I’ll happily leave the conversation now that your chosen activity is to argue about what the argument is about.”

Hey, I cant educate a guy that thinks putting on some faux intellectual act is an argument if it is above his pay-grade.

Next time think before you post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.