Trump delivered a speech Wednesday night at the RNC's Midterm Convention in Dallas, pledging to issue $5,000 dividends if GOP candidates secure majorities in both the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

If playground insults were legal arguments, you’d be Clarence freaking Darrow.

Well played, Russ. 

Rich Davis hurls insults like a damp sponge in a tornado—technically in motion, but utterly incapable of leaving a mark. BTW, I stand by all of my insults directed at Davis. If I was channeling DJT I'd say he is out here doing playground insults like a third-rate bully who got held back in recess—twice. People tell me his comebacks are so weak, even “I know you are but what am I?” filed a defamation suit.

The $5000 quid pro quo by the numbers:   https://www.axios.com/2026/09/14/trump-republicans-5000-checks-mike-johnson-midterms

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

If playground insults were legal arguments, you’d be Clarence freaking Darrow.

If playground insults were legal arguments, then I'd be in 2nd place behind Jim Brown who was the first to call me a "fool" and then an "extreme fool" in his drive by response.

Of course leftist Democrat ideologues like yourself feel entitled to ignore the insults hurled by those who hold the same leftist ideologies as you towards anyone on the right.

But hey, don't let principles get in the way of your leftist Democrat hypocrisy, which is always there 24/7/365.

Trump said "if the Republicans win both houses of Congress, then he (the gov't) would pay every adult in the US $5K.

Davis' reasoning for this NOT being a bribe:  Suppose Moscheck votes against Trump's party in the election but Trump's party wins both houses.  Moscheck will get $5000 even though he didn't vote the 'right' way.  Suppose Jim Brown doesn't vote at all but the R's prevail.  He gets $5000 too.  Every adult.  Therefore technically not a bribe. 

And technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Dave

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

If playground insults were legal arguments, then I'd be in 2nd place behind Jim Brown who was the first to call me a "fool" and then an "extreme fool" in his drive by response.

Of course leftist Democrat ideologues like yourself feel entitled to ignore the insults hurled by those who hold the same leftist ideologies as you towards anyone on the right.

But hey, don't let principles get in the way of your leftist Democrat hypocrisy, which is always there 24/7/365.

If I were you Rich, I would call you a liar because I never actually called you a fool or an extreme fool in my post. Reread my post. I simply didn’t call you those things “by name.“ I did describe certain characteristics of people I believe to be fools and extreme fools, and if you happen to apply those characteristics to yourself, so be it.   In any event, according to the Davis rules of engagement, you are clearly a liar.

On the other hand, for rational people, it was indeed pretty clear from the context of my post that I was implying you are indeed a fool, and an extreme fool at that. I’m glad you caught my drift.

This  little  example of pedantic gamesmanship is instructive, because I don’t think Trump‘s statements would ever be prosecuted as criminal bribery. On the other hand, it is clear to everyone with half a brain that Trump was trying to buy votes. I’m not as fussed about it as some since I think all politicians do this. For example, Biden was trying to buy votes when he canceled student debt. Trump was trying to buy votes when he passed the big beautiful Bill. Biden was trying to buy votes when he passed the inflation reduction act, and so on and so on and so on. Bottom line, it is pretty darn hilarious to see you strut about (metaphorically) and resort to pedantic nitpicking to defend the indefensible.

Rich Davis has told us what he thinks the $5000.00 per USA adult is not, i.e. a bribe, but I'd like to know what Rich Davis thinks it is?  Rich, tell us your opinion of this proposal from the man you supported for president.  
Rich, is it a reasonable, rational proposal that one would expect to originate from the president of the united states? Would you see it the same way if it originated from a democratic president?
Er, ah, I think we're in for a long wait...:'

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Rich Davis has told us what he thinks the $5000.00 per USA adult is not, i.e. a bribe, but I'd like to know what Rich Davis thinks it is?  Rich, tell us your opinion of this proposal from the man you supported for president.  
Rich, is it a reasonable, rational proposal that one would expect to originate from the president of the united states? Would you see it the same way if it originated from a democratic president?
Er, ah, I think we're in for a long wait...:'

By the way, Rod, is Trump getting his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court becoming so commonplace that you don’t even post about it anymore?  😀😀😀

Originally Posted by James Brown

By the way, Rod, is Trump getting his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court becoming so commonplace that you don’t even post about it anymore?  😀😀😀

Well, I'll post about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-attacks-supreme-court-justices-he-picked-for-rejecting-his-push-to-restrict-mail-ballots

"Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented from the order, and Trump on Tuesday called them "legends both." Trump has nominated three of the justices on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.

"These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves," Trump said. He asserted that the court "is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won't be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal."

So Trump interviewed them and not nominated them? I guess among his many faults he's also not the best interviewer for prospective job applicants. LOL

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Well, I'll post about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-attacks-supreme-court-justices-he-picked-for-rejecting-his-push-to-restrict-mail-ballots

"Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented from the order, and Trump on Tuesday called them "legends both." Trump has nominated three of the justices on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.

"These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves," Trump said. He asserted that the court "is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won't be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal."

So Trump interviewed them and not nominated them? I guess among his many faults he's also not the best interviewer for prospective job applicants. LOL

Hmm, although you beat me to it, I'll add more context:

Firstly, Clarence and Sammy are generally in Trump's legendary camp, almost 100% of the time, even in a black and white case like this one.
They also lead the pack, by far, in accepted "gifts" from various "admirers".

Second, Trump didn't do himself by going after Kavanaugh today since Brett indicated he'd be quite open to rehear the case after the midterms even though this one was supposedly decided on the "merits of the case"...

Thirdly, I'd sure like to know what Jim B thinks about AG Todd Blanche acting as the WH spokesperson today from the Rose garden of the WH wherein he defended Trump for going after the judges in question...I can remember when a Democratic president was investigated/castigated for briefly talking to an AG on the tarmac of an airport...

BTW, anybody heard from Rich lately?

Originally Posted by James Brown

By the way, Rod, is Trump getting his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court becoming so commonplace that you don’t even post about it anymore?  😀😀😀

The funny thing about Trump's mail-in voting lies is that overall, he's hurt Republicans far more than he's helped by actually reducing Republican voter turnout. Since so many Republicans will not vote by mail now, they are much more likely not to vote at all and miss early voting or Election Day. In fact, Republican affiliated PACs and the RNC are spending lots of money that could be spent better elsewhere, trying to convince Republican voters that mail-in voting is legitimate, all while Trump continues to bash it, without any actual evidence that there is a problem. Trump just can't help himself or accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election to Biden, so he has to live in this alternate reality where he lost due to mail-in voting fraud by illegals, or some other nonsense like that. The irony that the Republican Party is trying to restore confidence in mail-in voting, all while the current party leader is trying to destroy its legitimacy, is hard to miss.