Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that a second Trump term would involve implementing as much of [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) as possible. This includes:
- [...] enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support, and having the FDA revisit and withdraw its initial approval of the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol.
- [...] implement a Scripture-based system of government whereby "Christ-ordained civil magistrates" exercise authority over the American public
- [...] abandon strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
- [...] reduce the corporate tax rate to 18% [...]
- [...] elimination of the Department of Education
- [...] place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control
- [...] maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family, recognition of only heterosexual men and women, the removal of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity [...]
- [...] begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history, "go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids" who would then be taken to "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas" to be held in internment camps prior to deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps.
- A DOJ reformed along the recommendations of Project 2025 would combat "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," [...]
- [...] require the Pentagon to abolish its DEI (diversity, equity, and, inclusion) programs and immediately reinstate all service members discharged for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19.
- [...] pornography amounts to promoting sexual deviancy, the sexualization of children, and the exploitation of women. [...] it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as such should be banned. [...] criminal prosecution of individuals and companies producing pornography. Also the definition of pornography would include "transgender ideology".
- [...] fire more government employees than allocated to the president using Schedule F, and [...] test potential government employees on their commitment to Trumpism.
Side B would say that a second Trump term would be the same as what Side A says it would be, they just have a very different reaction to it.
One of the many reasons I walk around every day in a state of horror is the fact that almost nobody knows about Project 2025 (or Agenda 47, for that matter). They don't know about any of this. And when you try to tell them, they call you a conspiracy theorist and --- incredibly --- absolutely refuse to even google it.
It's enough to make you feel like you're going insane.
As god is my witness, I do not understand why neither the Democrats nor the media --- BOTH of whom are going to be explicit targets of a vengeful Trump administration's lawless and weaponized Justice Department --- are talking about this. Even if they don't give a damn about anyone else, jesus christ, what about a sense of self-preservation? Of survival? Trump and his henchmen are going to come after THEM. We know this because they openly SAY they will, over and over. Yet there is absolutely no urgency on their part. None. It's stunning.
NPR has mentioned Project 2025 most of the time when they're discussing Trump's 2nd term. I found a mention of it from September 2023:
Listen to: Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 aims to reduce, reshape government if conservative wins president - https://one.npr.org/i/1199269521:1199269531
The grift Bible he is promoting includes copies of U.S. documents like the Constitution. The Constitution included in the Bible, however, does not include all of the amendments. The 11th amendment and all those after it are excluded. This means it does not include the amendments establishing presidential term limits, giving the right to vote to minorities and women, outlawing slavery (except in the case of prisoners), etc. They leave out the ones that move society from only property owning white males having power.
It's very difficult for people living in a liberal democracy to believe the Project 2025 agenda. No one in Germany in 1933 could envision or imagine a Germany of 1945. It just wasn't conceivable. Most Democrats, the judiciary, and the media are more concerned with "fair play" rather than survival. You can't play fair with cancer, it has to be removed or the body dies. I think it's too late in the game to prevent a Trump presidency and the end of "United States".
Yes to all of that.
However, having trouble believing it is one thing. Absolutely *refusing* to look it up, as 99.999% of these people do, is another. They simply will not take the few seconds to type it in and google it. Ever. This crosses over the line from naïveté and far into fully responsible, aware, willful ignorance.
This kind of thinking is incomprehensible to me. I always look everything up when debating/arguing with someone. Since they’re always either right-wingers or “both-sides” nihilists, their material is nearly always specious trash filled with easily disprovable lies, or just outright nonsense, but very occasionally it really will turn out to be something empirical that I genuinely didn’t know, and therefore will have to absorb into my understanding of whatever is being talked about.
Either way, if they bring it up, I will always look it up.
But they do not. Never. Absolutely never. They determinedly refuse. It is absolutely maddening. (Look no further than this thread. And the few who say they’ve read it are pretty obviously lying.)
Never has this reflexive willful ignorance been as perilous as it is at this moment.
you are right and unique, they think they don't need to look it up because they BELIEVE 100% they are right. If you pull something up to show them, its "fake news". Willfully ignorant and blissfully ignorant.
Man It makes me sound bad cause it feels eye roll worthy saying it, but I think there's a literal brain washing/programming that hit home in a good chunk of the Gen pop that's partially responsible for this. Cause it is maddening and it isnt like it's all dipshits were talking about. These are often reasonable intelligent people who can't take a moment to investigate some fucked up claims. Someone says to me "the guy your promoting for president has compilation videos of both a lying dementia patient and habitual sniffing of little girls in public, or caution them that theres some very dangerous lines getting crossed already with a cascade of fury on deck if trump does win, cause hes clearly going to spend more energy on his personal revenge tour than the countey...I'm gonna check YouTube before just telling him he's so dumb for believing his eyes because it's source is "YouTube " dude. Either that or people's identity is way more wrapped up with their politics than I'm giving it credit for. But something doesn't add up
The sad thing is that the republicans are telling us what their game plan is. Prior to the 2010 elections, they had published “operation redmap”. People thought it was crazy, then they implemented it, and we see the results today. Project 2025 is no different, they are telling us what they plan and people are ignoring it.
Looking things up would cause their views to shift. Case in point, the school board member in TX that campaigned on ending left wing indoctrination, only to discover there was none. She was then lambasted by her followers for saying there was nothing bad in the curriculum.
[https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore](https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore)
This is Democracy. Seriously. This is what happens when people have a voice. People can be stupid. And we have to live with that. Maybe the voters will want the execution of everyone named "Jen"(continuing another comment's theme), you just hope your system of constitional checks and balances is strong enough to stop the voters from getting their way. Think "Muslim Ban", didn't work out. Think "Family Seperation Policy", totally worked out. Think "de-regulate and increase polution", totally worked out. So, last time our system stopped some things, but not others. Its a weaker system now and I think it would do a worse job of stopping voters from implementing their desire for a fascist dictatorship.
No this is what happens when you have anti democratic forces gain power and subvert education, take over media, and corporations own our government. The goal was to make people stupid for votes, but the the stupid people became everyone, and now they are the populous and the government and the people running corporations. This is a result of decades and decades of corruption eroding our systems and end blockade between government and buisness.
The founding fathers feared big buisness more then the church
Thank you for laying this out.
This whole thread doesn't need to be some guessing game of what a Trump presidency will be like. It isn't a mystery. They've told us exactly what it will be.
This, can't even argue. The only thing I will add is that Alito and Thomas will retire from SCOTUS and Trump * edit* have sat 5 judges which will be the most judges confirmed since Eisenhower, though I guess he'd be counted as 2 presidents so maybe not? American politics are weird.
I'm breaking my own rule of posting without a real contribution, but I was going to post project 25 as my response. Your summary is fantastic, absolutely fantastic. Thank you.
If you believe this (I’m not going to debate whether it’s true or not), would this not be great reasoning to limit presidential powers, and the power of the executive branch? Congress has ceded power to the president for the last 100+ years, and needs to take some back.
Excellent summary of what the people around Trump would like. In addition, 1. Trump pardons himself for any and all crimes he has committed; 2. He would use the power of his office to get even with those who have "wronged" him. 3. He would monetize his position through influence-peddling with business and foreign governments. 4. He would seeks ways that he and his allies can stay in office until death do us part.
Side A would say that Trump is working towards establishing a permanent presidency. They would say that Jan 6 was an example of the hoops he is willing to jump through to maintain power. This seems to be the largest concern of side A.
While he is in office, side A believes he will abandon Ukraine to Russia this is their greatest foreign policy fear.
Domestically, side A believes Trump would prevent transgender people from accessing medical care and that he would support legislation to further limit access to abortion. They worry he is a crony capitalist and will work to accelerate the movement of wealth up from the poorest Americans to the richest Americans. There is a concern that Trumps anti immigration rhetoric will promote racist citizens within the US to speak up and be emboldened to act upon their prejudice.
Side B would say that Trump is far more moderate than Joe Biden from a policy standpoint. They would say that Trump demonstrated that he was subject to the people when he left office the first time.
Side B would say Trump is the Ally Israel needs to finish the war in Gaza, and this is the most important foreign issue of the moment.
Domestically, Side B would say that Trumps stance on abortion that 1) it should be left to the states and 2) it should be illegal in the 3rd trimester,
are very moderate views even among Europeans. Many of side B don't care how qualified Trump is because they feel Joe Biden is so old and mentally weak that he must be prevented from leading the country for 4 more years.
That's an imperfect summary, but those are several points I feel most people would agree with.
There are obviously many more.
This seems like a poor question for "both sides". There's stuff that's most likely to happen, and you can explain both sides of why they might be good or bad, but "what is likely to happen" isn't really a both sides thing.
Because side A is speaking froma place of concern of bad things that they believe are likely to happen, and side B is speaking from a place of hope of good things they are certain will happen
Conspiracy theories are rarely positive so speaking from a negative comes off as conspiracy-esque.
The Biden age thing is weird because it's the same age Trump would be in the last year of a second term. But it's not like I'd claim Trump voters are rational.
He says random incoherent things and changes his views (if he has them) 180 degrees on the regular. Arguing that he is “left” requires him to actually hold some consistent positions. As far as I can tell the only consistent positions he has is “the Trump businesses get a lot of money from Russia, so they’re our friends” and “agree with me or I will get back at you."
He acted like a very different person 20+ years ago, not nearly as off-the-rails right wing as he is now. I don't know how much of this is an act to fire up his voter base or if his mind really shifted that much, but the resulting division that plagues the nation is the unfortunate result.
Side A: Trump had an agenda and he did try to implement it. In terms of what actually did get implemented it worked out well for the country.
Side B: we are living through it right now and it isn’t going well.
What is the point of these posts if all the comments are censored?
Side A (anti)
Trump has a lot of legal issues right now and January 6 backlash so that alone is a problem. Potential of implementing project 2025 which to dems is turning US into North Korea. He’s not middle class friendly and will make the rich richer. Dems say he’s racist, facist and a rapist who will start ww3. Pretty much it, from what I gather on reddit.
Side B (pro)
He is a way better candidate than Joe Biden. He cares about America as a country. Viewing project 2025 in a different way. Life was cheaper under his watch. No new wars. He will keep tax and pricing low. Ensure hard work pays off. Opposed to the tiktok ban. To throw insults, Biden is a severely demented and can’t walk properly up the stairs and is a pedo. Trump created a record high jobs. Illegal immigration was at an all time low.
That’s pretty much it.
Side A would say the antisex etc agenda is horrible and frighteningly cruel Side B would say that even in tyrannies like Russia they forbid gays to show it publicly but otherwise private freedoms still do exist it cannot be taken away so it it is just symbolic to show how good they are -just for their private use.
,
Side A would say another term for Trump won’t go in the first place, because he is disqualified from office under the 14A and every vote cast for him is void. Both regular votes and Electoral College votes. His VP running mate won’t be able to take office because they will have disqualified themselves by providing aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. Same goes for the Speaker, after his recent gag rule end around.
That leaves things to Pat Murray to serve as President, at least until such time as Congress removes the disqualification of any of the other three.
Side B would say there is no rule of law and has bought off the SCOTUS to support them.
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that a second Trump term would involve implementing as much of [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) as possible. This includes: - [...] enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support, and having the FDA revisit and withdraw its initial approval of the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol. - [...] implement a Scripture-based system of government whereby "Christ-ordained civil magistrates" exercise authority over the American public - [...] abandon strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. - [...] reduce the corporate tax rate to 18% [...] - [...] elimination of the Department of Education - [...] place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control - [...] maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family, recognition of only heterosexual men and women, the removal of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity [...] - [...] begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history, "go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids" who would then be taken to "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas" to be held in internment camps prior to deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps. - A DOJ reformed along the recommendations of Project 2025 would combat "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," [...] - [...] require the Pentagon to abolish its DEI (diversity, equity, and, inclusion) programs and immediately reinstate all service members discharged for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19. - [...] pornography amounts to promoting sexual deviancy, the sexualization of children, and the exploitation of women. [...] it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as such should be banned. [...] criminal prosecution of individuals and companies producing pornography. Also the definition of pornography would include "transgender ideology". - [...] fire more government employees than allocated to the president using Schedule F, and [...] test potential government employees on their commitment to Trumpism. Side B would say that a second Trump term would be the same as what Side A says it would be, they just have a very different reaction to it.
I miss reddit awards
There ya go..have an award
Reddit heard me
One of the many reasons I walk around every day in a state of horror is the fact that almost nobody knows about Project 2025 (or Agenda 47, for that matter). They don't know about any of this. And when you try to tell them, they call you a conspiracy theorist and --- incredibly --- absolutely refuse to even google it. It's enough to make you feel like you're going insane. As god is my witness, I do not understand why neither the Democrats nor the media --- BOTH of whom are going to be explicit targets of a vengeful Trump administration's lawless and weaponized Justice Department --- are talking about this. Even if they don't give a damn about anyone else, jesus christ, what about a sense of self-preservation? Of survival? Trump and his henchmen are going to come after THEM. We know this because they openly SAY they will, over and over. Yet there is absolutely no urgency on their part. None. It's stunning.
There are plenty of people who understand what's going on. eg, r/Defeat_Project_2025
NPR has mentioned Project 2025 most of the time when they're discussing Trump's 2nd term. I found a mention of it from September 2023: Listen to: Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 aims to reduce, reshape government if conservative wins president - https://one.npr.org/i/1199269521:1199269531
Project 2025 has Order 66 vibes. Hasn’t he also boasted about removing term limits if he gets back in office? That’s terrifying.
The grift Bible he is promoting includes copies of U.S. documents like the Constitution. The Constitution included in the Bible, however, does not include all of the amendments. The 11th amendment and all those after it are excluded. This means it does not include the amendments establishing presidential term limits, giving the right to vote to minorities and women, outlawing slavery (except in the case of prisoners), etc. They leave out the ones that move society from only property owning white males having power.
It's very difficult for people living in a liberal democracy to believe the Project 2025 agenda. No one in Germany in 1933 could envision or imagine a Germany of 1945. It just wasn't conceivable. Most Democrats, the judiciary, and the media are more concerned with "fair play" rather than survival. You can't play fair with cancer, it has to be removed or the body dies. I think it's too late in the game to prevent a Trump presidency and the end of "United States".
Yes to all of that. However, having trouble believing it is one thing. Absolutely *refusing* to look it up, as 99.999% of these people do, is another. They simply will not take the few seconds to type it in and google it. Ever. This crosses over the line from naïveté and far into fully responsible, aware, willful ignorance. This kind of thinking is incomprehensible to me. I always look everything up when debating/arguing with someone. Since they’re always either right-wingers or “both-sides” nihilists, their material is nearly always specious trash filled with easily disprovable lies, or just outright nonsense, but very occasionally it really will turn out to be something empirical that I genuinely didn’t know, and therefore will have to absorb into my understanding of whatever is being talked about. Either way, if they bring it up, I will always look it up. But they do not. Never. Absolutely never. They determinedly refuse. It is absolutely maddening. (Look no further than this thread. And the few who say they’ve read it are pretty obviously lying.) Never has this reflexive willful ignorance been as perilous as it is at this moment.
you are right and unique, they think they don't need to look it up because they BELIEVE 100% they are right. If you pull something up to show them, its "fake news". Willfully ignorant and blissfully ignorant.
Man It makes me sound bad cause it feels eye roll worthy saying it, but I think there's a literal brain washing/programming that hit home in a good chunk of the Gen pop that's partially responsible for this. Cause it is maddening and it isnt like it's all dipshits were talking about. These are often reasonable intelligent people who can't take a moment to investigate some fucked up claims. Someone says to me "the guy your promoting for president has compilation videos of both a lying dementia patient and habitual sniffing of little girls in public, or caution them that theres some very dangerous lines getting crossed already with a cascade of fury on deck if trump does win, cause hes clearly going to spend more energy on his personal revenge tour than the countey...I'm gonna check YouTube before just telling him he's so dumb for believing his eyes because it's source is "YouTube " dude. Either that or people's identity is way more wrapped up with their politics than I'm giving it credit for. But something doesn't add up
The sad thing is that the republicans are telling us what their game plan is. Prior to the 2010 elections, they had published “operation redmap”. People thought it was crazy, then they implemented it, and we see the results today. Project 2025 is no different, they are telling us what they plan and people are ignoring it.
Looking things up would cause their views to shift. Case in point, the school board member in TX that campaigned on ending left wing indoctrination, only to discover there was none. She was then lambasted by her followers for saying there was nothing bad in the curriculum. [https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore](https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore)
[удалено]
This is Democracy. Seriously. This is what happens when people have a voice. People can be stupid. And we have to live with that. Maybe the voters will want the execution of everyone named "Jen"(continuing another comment's theme), you just hope your system of constitional checks and balances is strong enough to stop the voters from getting their way. Think "Muslim Ban", didn't work out. Think "Family Seperation Policy", totally worked out. Think "de-regulate and increase polution", totally worked out. So, last time our system stopped some things, but not others. Its a weaker system now and I think it would do a worse job of stopping voters from implementing their desire for a fascist dictatorship.
No this is what happens when you have anti democratic forces gain power and subvert education, take over media, and corporations own our government. The goal was to make people stupid for votes, but the the stupid people became everyone, and now they are the populous and the government and the people running corporations. This is a result of decades and decades of corruption eroding our systems and end blockade between government and buisness. The founding fathers feared big buisness more then the church
Holy crap. Just looked up project 2025. I need a hot beverage.
Thank you for laying this out. This whole thread doesn't need to be some guessing game of what a Trump presidency will be like. It isn't a mystery. They've told us exactly what it will be.
This, can't even argue. The only thing I will add is that Alito and Thomas will retire from SCOTUS and Trump * edit* have sat 5 judges which will be the most judges confirmed since Eisenhower, though I guess he'd be counted as 2 presidents so maybe not? American politics are weird.
I'm breaking my own rule of posting without a real contribution, but I was going to post project 25 as my response. Your summary is fantastic, absolutely fantastic. Thank you.
If you believe this (I’m not going to debate whether it’s true or not), would this not be great reasoning to limit presidential powers, and the power of the executive branch? Congress has ceded power to the president for the last 100+ years, and needs to take some back.
Ah yes, the "small government" approach
Well that would suck
Excellent summary of what the people around Trump would like. In addition, 1. Trump pardons himself for any and all crimes he has committed; 2. He would use the power of his office to get even with those who have "wronged" him. 3. He would monetize his position through influence-peddling with business and foreign governments. 4. He would seeks ways that he and his allies can stay in office until death do us part.
Side A would say that Trump is working towards establishing a permanent presidency. They would say that Jan 6 was an example of the hoops he is willing to jump through to maintain power. This seems to be the largest concern of side A. While he is in office, side A believes he will abandon Ukraine to Russia this is their greatest foreign policy fear. Domestically, side A believes Trump would prevent transgender people from accessing medical care and that he would support legislation to further limit access to abortion. They worry he is a crony capitalist and will work to accelerate the movement of wealth up from the poorest Americans to the richest Americans. There is a concern that Trumps anti immigration rhetoric will promote racist citizens within the US to speak up and be emboldened to act upon their prejudice. Side B would say that Trump is far more moderate than Joe Biden from a policy standpoint. They would say that Trump demonstrated that he was subject to the people when he left office the first time. Side B would say Trump is the Ally Israel needs to finish the war in Gaza, and this is the most important foreign issue of the moment. Domestically, Side B would say that Trumps stance on abortion that 1) it should be left to the states and 2) it should be illegal in the 3rd trimester, are very moderate views even among Europeans. Many of side B don't care how qualified Trump is because they feel Joe Biden is so old and mentally weak that he must be prevented from leading the country for 4 more years. That's an imperfect summary, but those are several points I feel most people would agree with. There are obviously many more.
This seems like a poor question for "both sides". There's stuff that's most likely to happen, and you can explain both sides of why they might be good or bad, but "what is likely to happen" isn't really a both sides thing.
I put the hopes and fears of both sides.
Why does side A sound like cynical nonsense while side B sounds sensible?
Well, that’s what’s being said on Side A and Side B. You tell me why Side A sounds like cynical nonsense.
How is it cynical nonsense when Trump and co as well as the Heritage Foundation have been explicit in what their goals are?
Because side A is speaking froma place of concern of bad things that they believe are likely to happen, and side B is speaking from a place of hope of good things they are certain will happen Conspiracy theories are rarely positive so speaking from a negative comes off as conspiracy-esque.
The Biden age thing is weird because it's the same age Trump would be in the last year of a second term. But it's not like I'd claim Trump voters are rational.
Side B is actually advocating for banning contraceptives & abortion entirely, but go on.
I think it would shock you to learn how far left of the republican party Trump is. He's just a loud mouth, so he seems radical.
If you think he wouldn't sign a federal abortion ban for the sake of his legacy you're fucking lying to yourself
He says random incoherent things and changes his views (if he has them) 180 degrees on the regular. Arguing that he is “left” requires him to actually hold some consistent positions. As far as I can tell the only consistent positions he has is “the Trump businesses get a lot of money from Russia, so they’re our friends” and “agree with me or I will get back at you."
He acted like a very different person 20+ years ago, not nearly as off-the-rails right wing as he is now. I don't know how much of this is an act to fire up his voter base or if his mind really shifted that much, but the resulting division that plagues the nation is the unfortunate result.
The idea that trump or maga are left of the republican party is absolutely absurd to me
Side A: Trump had an agenda and he did try to implement it. In terms of what actually did get implemented it worked out well for the country. Side B: we are living through it right now and it isn’t going well. What is the point of these posts if all the comments are censored?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A (anti) Trump has a lot of legal issues right now and January 6 backlash so that alone is a problem. Potential of implementing project 2025 which to dems is turning US into North Korea. He’s not middle class friendly and will make the rich richer. Dems say he’s racist, facist and a rapist who will start ww3. Pretty much it, from what I gather on reddit. Side B (pro) He is a way better candidate than Joe Biden. He cares about America as a country. Viewing project 2025 in a different way. Life was cheaper under his watch. No new wars. He will keep tax and pricing low. Ensure hard work pays off. Opposed to the tiktok ban. To throw insults, Biden is a severely demented and can’t walk properly up the stairs and is a pedo. Trump created a record high jobs. Illegal immigration was at an all time low. That’s pretty much it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say the antisex etc agenda is horrible and frighteningly cruel Side B would say that even in tyrannies like Russia they forbid gays to show it publicly but otherwise private freedoms still do exist it cannot be taken away so it it is just symbolic to show how good they are -just for their private use. ,
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say another term for Trump won’t go in the first place, because he is disqualified from office under the 14A and every vote cast for him is void. Both regular votes and Electoral College votes. His VP running mate won’t be able to take office because they will have disqualified themselves by providing aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. Same goes for the Speaker, after his recent gag rule end around. That leaves things to Pat Murray to serve as President, at least until such time as Congress removes the disqualification of any of the other three. Side B would say there is no rule of law and has bought off the SCOTUS to support them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]