Quote:

---

Analogies cut both ways. The Left’s ridiculous insistence that “Trump is just like Hitler” carries the obvious implication that “Hitler was not much worse than Trump.” Does the Left realize how much it’s doing to clean up Hitler’s image and make him seem not so bad after all?

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 11, 2024

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Interesting tactic, quoting a convicted felon and known liar to support a point. This tells me your point is pretty weak if this is the best support you can muster.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Donald Trump is an absolute moron. pic.twitter.com/p7Jzf19QU6

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 12, 2024

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

The quote is hopefully an exaggeration by Trump but the point is acceptable when you are trying to get freeloaders to stop freeloading because they have been freeloading for years.

---

It's not acceptable. It's an invitation for Russia to attack our allies. It's the weakest statement from a Presidential candidate I can ever recall being made.

You discuss issues with your allies, you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy.

---

AunBear89 said:

---

It's cute that you think this registers at all with me, karen003. Wipe of your chin and go find some more conservatives to slurp.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

The quote is hopefully an exaggeration by Trump but the point is acceptable when you are trying to get freeloaders to stop freeloading because they have been freeloading for years.

---

So you're saying that it's OK to encourage Russia to invade neighboring countries like Poland or Finland because Spain, Greece and some other countries need to spend more on their defense budgets? Hopefully you didn't mean that.

---

The point is that these freeloaders need to stop freeloading. Let's just send another 75 billion to Ukraine. 1.5 Trillion is nothing these days, right?

---

I see. Just ignore the dangerous and embarrassingly ignorant part of that statement.

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

The quote is hopefully an exaggeration by Trump but the point is acceptable when you are trying to get freeloaders to stop freeloading because they have been freeloading for years.

---

So you're saying that it's OK to encourage Russia to invade neighboring countries like Poland or Finland because Spain, Greece and some other countries need to spend more on their defense budgets? Hopefully you didn't mean that.

---

The point is that these freeloaders need to stop freeloading. Let's just send another 75 billion to Ukraine. 1.5 Trillion is nothing these days, right?

---

I see. Just ignore the dangerous and embarrassingly ignorant part of that statement.

---

All I asked is that the quote be debated within the actual context. I too would prefer a president who discussed these things with allies behind closed doors instead of making it a campaign point that emboldens Russia. Thanks.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

The quote is hopefully an exaggeration by Trump but the point is acceptable when you are trying to get freeloaders to stop freeloading because they have been freeloading for years.

---

So you're saying that it's OK to encourage Russia to invade neighboring countries like Poland or Finland because Spain, Greece and some other countries need to spend more on their defense budgets? Hopefully you didn't mean that.

---

The point is that these freeloaders need to stop freeloading. Let's just send another 75 billion to Ukraine. 1.5 Trillion is nothing these days, right?

---

I see. Just ignore the dangerous and embarrassingly ignorant part of that statement.

---

All I asked is that the quote be debated within the actual context. I too would prefer a president who discussed these things with allies behind closed doors instead of making it a campaign point that emboldens Russia. Thanks.

---

Very well. Having nearly every country in Europe expand and better equip their military has always lead to peace and prosperity, except for all of history through World War II.

---

AunBear89 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ This latest from Trump (NATO/Russia) would normally be enough to destroy anybody's candidacy any time over the last 75 years. But he has lowered the bar so far that it's just another thing he says. It's time the GOP stops claiming they're the party of Ronald Reagan, because he'd turn over in his grave if he heard this.

---

But that's not really what he said. He said the U.S. shouldn't be obligated to defend those in NATO who don't meet their agreed upon defense spending. The quote is taken out of context and misleading. Folks here should feel free to debate the harm from what he actually said, not the partial quote taken out of context.

---

What is the acceptable context for "tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want"?

---

The quote is hopefully an exaggeration by Trump but the point is acceptable when you are trying to get freeloaders to stop freeloading because they have been freeloading for years.

---

So you're saying that it's OK to encourage Russia to invade neighboring countries like Poland or Finland because Spain, Greece and some other countries need to spend more on their defense budgets? Hopefully you didn't mean that.

---

The point is that these freeloaders need to stop freeloading. Let's just send another 75 billion to Ukraine. 1.5 Trillion is nothing these days, right?

---

I see. Just ignore the dangerous and embarrassingly ignorant part of that statement.

---

All I asked is that the quote be debated within the actual context. I too would prefer a president who discussed these things with allies behind closed doors instead of making it a campaign point that emboldens Russia. Thanks.

---

Very well. Having nearly every country in Europe expand and better equip their military has always lead to peace and prosperity, except for all of history through World War II.

---

There are military obligations to be in NATO. Look them up if you'd like further information. Nobody is arguing for some Nazi like militarization.

---

Ok. Clearly you only think you know what you're talking about. Or you are using the wrong words. There is no obligation. There is a 2% of GDP to military spending pledge. Many of the members meet or exceed that pledge. Others do not, for whatever reasons, manage to budget more than 2% of their GDP for military spending.


There is no obligation to pay anyone. Not NATO, not the USA. Just a pledge to spend a certain amount on defense spending.

You and Trump seem to think that this money owed to the USA for protection. Basically, Trump is telling allies "It's a beautiful country you have here! It would be a shame if something happened to it. Pay up so we can see that nothing does!" Yet there are no payments to anyone.


I have just made one of those substantive posts that you righteous righties whine about. Do you have a cogent reply to this ass whipping I just gave you?

---

Quote:

---

Attitudes Toward Presidential Candidates in the 2012 and 2016 American Elections: Cognitive Ability and Support for Trump

Using data from the American National Election Studies, we investigated the relationship between cognitive ability and attitudes toward and actual voting for presidential candidates in the 2012 and 2016 U.S. presidential elections (i.e., Romney, Obama, Trump, and Clinton). Isolating this relationship from competing relationships, results showed that verbal ability was a significant negative predictor of support and voting for Trump (but not Romney) and a positive predictor of support and voting for Obama and Clinton. By comparing within and across the election years, our analyses revealed the nature of support for Trump, including that support for Trump was better predicted by lower verbal ability than education or income. In general, these results suggest that the 2016 U.S. presidential election had less to do with party affiliation, income, or education and more to do with basic cognitive ability.

---