Maggie's Farm

Zachriel made a hash of his comment because he was so eager to appear clever and insightful, which he isn't. Read his comment again. He's saying Trump is a monster that Cheney created and is now being destroyed by Trump.

Is that what you're agreeing with?

"Cheney is like the mad scientist in a 1950s sci-fi movie, who creates a monster and realizes too late that he has to stop it before it escapes, then gets destroyed in some horrible way by the monster."

Hum.
1. Cheney has never been a supporter of Trump in any of his presidential elections. They are notably at odds over the policy area that Cheney has been the most passionate about most of his life, war making. That's why lying progressives like you pretended to hate him right up until a few days ago when y'all began treating him like the best thing since shite bread.

2. Harris and the democrat party are clearly the ones that would appropriately be deemed "monsters" since they are clearly the extremists and authoritarians.

3. Cheney isn't being destroyed. He's getting more attention in the last few days than he's gotten in over a decade and more praise than he has ever gotten in his life.

Maybe stop playacting at being clever or especially insightful and stick to just simply straightforwardly stating your absurd opinions.

Is t your position that courts never reach incorrection conclusions? That prosecutors never overcharge or charge innocent people? That judges or prosecutors are never driven by personal or political considerations? That investigators are never less than competent or honest?

Would you be so dismissive of such questions if the defendants were of other political inclinations?

"Cheney supported Trump in 2016" I stand corrected. Thanks.

"Keep in mind that Trump has said he would be dictator on day one, would terminate the Constitution, and has threatened to use police powers against his political opponents." This is the stuff that you just can't help yourself on that completely destroys your credibility. At the absolute best, your characterization of Trump's positions is as ungenerous as one can possibly be. It is much more likely propaganda that you have willingly assimilated or are consciously repeating for some perceived personal or political benefit. Trump is consistently hyperbolic. It simply is not reasonable to claim that Trump likely meant or intended for the statement about "being a dictator on day one for just one day. The refusal to contextualize the statement with the "for one day" phrase is also a tell about your dishonesty. But one need not rely on his hyperbolic statement to predict his behavior. He was actually president for four years. Make arguments based on his actions. And try not to bring up "J6" since your characterizations of it have been equally dishonest. Nor did he call for the termination of the constitution in his truth social post (I've read it). But that's an exceptionally rich complaint coming from you given all the blatantly unconstitutional acts democrats have engaged in and their recent propensity for calling for the abandonment of the constitution, including one of Harris' primary political advisors. He has not threatened to "jail his political opponents." He has advocated prosecuting people for crimes he believes they committed. But that is also especially rich coming from someone so eager to justify the unjustifiable lawfare waged against him.

"Well, the analogy is far from perfect." That's the understatement of the year. The analogy is not only so flawed that it doesn't work at all, but also so misconceived that most people misunderstand it.

BTW, I will happily trade the Cheney's, Romney, the McCain offspring, David French, Bill Crystal and etc. for Tulsi, Elon, RFK, the Weinstein brothers, Jordan Peterson, Matt Taibbi, Russell Brand, etc.

If you consider yourself a serious thinker, which you clearly have pretentions of, you should be concerned about the fact that the defectors to your side are limited to the repetition of shallow talking points, tone policing, and hyperbolic descriptions of Trump and his supporters. Like you are. While the defectors from your side to my side consistently have very thoughtful, well fleshed out, deep, complex and well supported arguments.

Take for example, RFK, who if your political party and allies had not subverted the democratic process repeatedly, probably would be the democrat presidential candidate now. And you would have been praising profusely. He now accurately describes Harris and the democrat party as authoritarian and a threat to the existence of not just our basic constitutional rights and our representative government, but the country itself. None of which you would be able to ignore or dismiss if you had even a modicum of intellectual honesty or moral integrity.

I can well imagine that Charles Schwab has done some shady stuff. But if you're talking about the WEF, I think its Claus Schwab you should be critical of. ;)